The paradox of abstentionism:
A series of events has led to the dismantlement of language itself. Words have lost meaning and so has society. Too many confuse Democracy from the Greek Demos and Kratos with Republic from the Latin Res and Publica. Too many confuse equity from the Latin aequitas with equality from the Latin aequalitas. Too many misunderstand the political spectrum believing socialism lay on the left and fascism on the right. The result of all this confusion is the cacophony we call the West: a confused series of nation states focused on the short term, unable to strategize for the long term.
The economic liberalization is leading the west into an evitable Nachtwächterstaat, a night-watchman state. A liberal state in which the power lies in the hands of a small oligarchy and the government is left managing the night's watch. In today's globalized world this idea is sold in the name of efficiency, as government bureaucracy is nothing more than a hindrance to progress and must therefore be replaced by the "efficient" markets. Nothing embodies this more than the creation of independent central banking. Colossal financial institutions, who by design cannot go bankrupt and yet offload their bonds to the "efficient" market, sometimes even in foreign currencies. By introducing this external constraint the "efficient" market can impose its will regardless of who wins the elections. Are citizens aware of this reality? That the cost of covering the debt is shifted from one tax to another, from one public spending cut to another without voters being able to perceive it. Could it be that Churchill was right, "that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". In a world more connected than ever, it's incredible to see how little attention is paid to the functioning of central banking. The voter is irresponsible for not informing himself but so is the information apparatus who prefers devoting attention to a reform instead of the why the reform is needed. Society doesn't live beyond its means but the external constraint does not forget or forgive. Under such a system the voter is left with few options:
The fantasy of finally voting for someone who will change the world, missing the point of the external constraint.
The fantasy of a revolution without understanding the importance of the rate of change as demonstrated by the French revolution or more recently Afghanistan.
No wonder Western governments are pushing for the legalization of drugs. What better way to fuel the fantasy of a better world, to create the illusion of a utopia in a dystopian reality, than the side effects of psychotropics; Welcome to Weimar!
sidenote: 11 years ago Italians voted against the privatization of water. Today, the Italian government has cancelled the will of the Italians with its new decree, DDL Concorrenza.
Pacta sunt servanda:
Abstention is the only answer that a voter can give to a political class that doesn't represent it. A citizen should not fear the act and cave to peer pressure, "the lesser of two evils". Not voting is the vote of NO CONFIDENCE. The vote of NO to external constraints. The vote of NO to the neo liberal order who wants nothing more than to let the "efficient" market determine the cost of the air we breathe. Trends in the west highlight a steady decline in voter participation and governments continue to operate as if the non voting group, in some cases a majority, does not exist.
The ancient Romans, the ones who gifted us with the concept of the Republic, created a system to limit the power of the patriarchs. The tribunus plebis, an office by the plebs for the plebs who possessed the ability to veto any decisions taken by consuls. A similar system using a threshold could be implemented, in which if said threshold is not passed the vote is illegitimate, collapsing the government as it does not represent the will of the people. Some may argue that if a large enough majority of non voters exists one should organize it to vote accordingly. If one were able to organize such a counter movement one would not need to abstain from voting hence, the paradox of abstentionism. Leaving aside the statistical improbability of achieving such a feat, an idea like this has the tendency to create the illusion of "the one". The one who will change - Yes We Can - the system. The Movimento 5 Stelle is a perfect representation of this. A counter movement against the external constraint, who once inside the government became just another gatekeeper. The beauty of the veto is in its simplicity. One does not require a herculean feat to unify a nation but only ask one single question. Does the current government represent YOU. In doing so one removes the ideological barriers constantly fed by the media apparatus who happen to be owned by the "efficient" market. By granting citizens the power of veto the "efficient" markets would not be able to rely on the bare minimum to maintain control as a real majority would be needed to make "efficient" reforms. The external constraint would not vanish but its ability to impose its own will would diminish as governments would be forced to evoke the Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus.
Buy Med…
ps: The power of abstention was used effectively by the Hungarians following their failed revolution in 1848. By refusing to send their representatives to the imperial council (abstention), they made it clear that the Austrians did not, nor would ever represent the Hungarians. This would lead to the compromise of 67, with the establishment of the dual-monarchy. Of course things are not that simple, there are countless other factors that led to the event of 67 including but not limited the defeat against Piedmont-Sardinia in 59, the defeat against Prussia in 66…etc The Habsburgs were caught between a rock and a hard place, they chose the compromise to survive. The same can be said of our chancelleries, having to deal with multiple crises, they too can be forced to compromise.