Creating Change (3)

In the advanced countries, dissatisfaction with government stems from its inability to deliver effective economic policies for growth and inclusion. In the newer democracies of the developing world, failure to safeguard civil liberties and political freedom is an additional source of discontent.

It is hardly news that the rich have more political power than the poor. When the elites’ interests differ from those of the rest of society, it is their views that count – almost exclusively. A study of American federal policy by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, point out, “it makes very little difference what the general public thinks” once interest-group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans are taken into account. The political system is tilted in favor of the economic elite. Politicians play second fiddle to powerful financial CEOs and more often than not also to supra-national bodies such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. The overwhelming strength of capital in markets sets the political agenda for the economy.

A politician who represents the interests primarily of economic elites has to find other means of appealing to the masses. Such an alternative is provided by the politics of nationalism, sectarianism, and identity – a politics based on cultural values and symbolism rather than bread-and-butter interests.  As a result, the representatives of the ruling class have been able to retain power despite their pursuit of economic and social policies that are opposed to the interests of the working class. Identity politics is malignant because it tends to draw boundaries around a privileged in-group and requires the exclusion of outsiders – those of other countries, values, religions, or ethnicities. This can be seen in Russia, Turkey, and Hungary. In order to solidify their electoral base, leaders in these countries appeal heavily to national, cultural, and religious symbols. In doing so, they typically inflame passions against religious and ethnic minorities. The ploy pays off handsomely at the polls but it also fosters a poisonous politics of sectarianism. One consequence, however, has been the rise of extremist groups while at the same time, regional separatist movements such as those in Catalonia and Scotland challenge the legitimacy of nation-states as they are currently configured and seek their breakup. Populism is not the answer. The emergence of a xenophobic right should serve as a warning that a lack of real democratic alternatives makes extremist alternatives attractive.

  It could be argued that members of low-income households should reasonably vote for political parties that fight for economic redistribution. Data tell us a different story: low-income households, much more so than those of the wealthier tend to abstain from going to the polls altogether.  In the US, people with a disposable annual household income of more than US$100,000 are more likely to vote than those with an income of US$15,000 or less. The proportions who vote are 80% versus 30%. As Gilens and Page explain, we should think of the preferences of the top 10% as a proxy for the views of the truly wealthy, say, the top 1% – the genuine elite.

The platforms of social-democrats and other left-winger still claim to represent the interests of low-income classes. This is, however, more a public relations device to pay lip-service to  anachronistic image as defenders of “social justice”. When in office, however, reformist parties face a paradoxical dilemma: to effectively support redistributive policies such as minimum wages, maintenance of the welfare state and taxation of higher incomes would likely harm their historical constituency, low-income households. Such policies would result in threats by investors to move capital and investments abroad. That, in turn, would cost jobs in the national market and result in less economic growth, less public revenue, less social investment and, eventually, fewer votes. To remain in government depends on the performance of their real economies and on the confidence of financial markets.
Left parties have hardly profited from the socio-economic destruction that has ravaged a large part of the European continent. Left-wing parties, like the Dutch Socialist Party (SP) or the French Left Front (FdG), are only “far left” in the minds of conservative pundits. As the right became more and more enthralled with deregulation and privatization, the  left response is essentially not much more than asking for less of the same and offering a weak form of Keynesian investment politics, devoid of an alternative, deprived of principles and denying the class struggle.

Since the late 1970s protest movements began to focus more on cultural than on economic issues. The importance of trade unions steadily declined. In countries like France or Spain, once home of powerful unions, less than 10% of the workforce is unionised. Their importance notwithstanding, environmental organisations  main goals are far removed from economic equality and redistribution.

When democracy fails to deliver economically or politically, perhaps it is to be expected that some people will look for authoritarian solutions, delegating economic policy to technocratic bodies in order to insulate politicians from the “folly of the masses” almost always is the preferred approach. Businessmen look wistfully at China and wish their leaders could act just as boldly and decisively – that is, more autocratically – to address the country’s reform challenges.  In countries like Egypt and Thailand, military intervention is viewed as a temporary necessity to keep commerce running smoothly.

From “Indignados” to  “Occupy” the new social movements also no longer see elections  as a sufficient source of legitimacy. Nevertheless, direct democracy and citizen participation, however, are anathema for the ruling technocrats. Yet, still have to answer the question of how we organise our decision-making processes. Even though elections are no longer the only strategy – without an electoral mandate, our struggles would be doomed. What appears to be missing are the common platform, the shared goals  and solidarity links which can bind us all together in protest movements, both inside and beyond national boundaries, to form a powerful catalysts of change.  People tend to wrap meaning into narratives.  We make sense of the chaotic world by rooting phenomena in emotions, experiences and intuitions. We have forgotten that we need myths, emotions, images, and dreams.  A utopia is needed. Utopia describes a better tomorrow. Utopia provides the compass for the direction we should be taking. The Socialist Party’s commitment to its social democratic vision enables all people to make an informed judgement on whether a path leads into the right or wrong direction.

Without the ability to mobilise, without that passionate hope in a common vision people do not come together in great numbers. Only a positive promise for a better world can end the paralysing fear of the pending end the World as we know it.  Only if enough people believe that a better life is possible, they are willing to struggle for change.  Utopian aspirations allows imagining a different world  and reminds us that the present society is not set in stone but can be moulded into a different future. When people join their forces in their  communities there is a powerful awakening which can create change. The possibility for a better tomorrow gives people the courage to rebuild the world from the ground. The World Socialist Movement can join together isolated struggles across social or national borders in solidarity for everybody’s emancipation. Only through debates, discussions and discourse can we give credibility to utopia, making it a feasible and realistic alternative.