With most people choosing their least hated option, why does voting still matter?
By Joseph Leivdal
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee
As the provincial election approaches, we will begin to hear the usual message about our right and responsibility to vote. This notion that our democratic responsibility can be fulfilled by casting a ballot for whomever we think is the lesser of evils needs to be reinterpreted, as the current way it is often presented — in terms of combating apathy and a denial of political alternatives — is dangerous.
Representative democracy assumes that the state has a reasonable amount of control over its social and economic destiny. However, capitalism has been so invasive that it operates regardless of borders and political boundaries.
This should not be a surprising statement. We live in a world where corporations are granted the rights of persons and market systems, they not only depend on globalized, cross-border operations but actually work to undermine political processes that prevent these operations. When a society that is founded on the ideals of democracy is materially dependent on the exploitative market, it’s bound to be full of contradictions.
One of those contradictions is the mythology of the democratic responsibility to vote. According to this myth, it is the
individual’s responsibility to change the system for the better, and channels people’s energies into a means for enacting a change (i.e. voting) that is fundamentally broken. Lucy Parsons, an American labour organizer and radical socialist, made the famous statement: “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”
Those most often at the buttend of this mythology seem to be the youth, containing one of the largest demographics of non-voters. The media perpetuates the myth by portraying youth as a generation corrupted by popular culture and individualism, with no concern for the collective destiny of the nation.
This dangerous statement confuses alienation from the political process with the fictional concept of “apathy,” while concurrently demonizing political dissent, a collective action, and individualistically reinforcing the responsibility to vote. When all we see is politicians who seem unable to tell unethical policy from their you-knowwhats, who operate within in a system that consistently betrays good-faith, it is no wonder that we can find better things to do than vote on election day.
However, while the harmful effects of the previously mentioned discourse must be criticized, we cannot miss the margins for the mainstream.
While we may feel alienated from the political system, and indeed it is often easier to imagine what the end the world would look like rather than a world outside the current system, your vote does make a difference in the lives of the most marginalized in society, who are rarely afforded a voice to demand recognition of their struggles; they struggle within the shadows. Witness the 373 per cent increase in homelessness in BC under Gordon Campbell.
There is something wrong with democracy, yes. The mythology of apathy and responsibility may be harmful, yes. While the difference between policy decisions by the NDP or Liberals or anyone else simply cannot end oppression and poverty, it does make a difference in the lives of the most unfortunate. An analysis of the broader trends and ultimate rejection of the voting system is not a privilege that those struggling to feed themselves and their children can afford.
Those of us who are more fortunate have a responsibility to those who are less fortunate, and so we should vote. But in a society that is by definition corrupt and unsustainable, that lies to us, degrades us, and demands obedience, the only democratic responsibility that remains is that of a radical confrontation with that very system.
