Some myths destroyed

Another election looms for those that care. In the next two months, party activists and political journalists will try to enthuse everyone else about voting for local councilors and members of parliament. Everyone else will likely wonder what all the fuss is about.

I will follow the General Election in the way I follow the football World Cup or a drama series on television. I will invest my emotions in the arguments and take sides with those I feel some connection to or empathy with, but I know that ultimately it is insignificant. Insignificant although, like Hunter S Thompson, I have an addiction to political contests and I am the sort of amateur wonk that sits up waiting for European Parliament election results.

One thing the professional wonks will certainly debate will be the low voter turnout, which will mostly be attributed to apathy. Apathy in an election that is seen as a foregone conclusion, which will bring an uninspiring, insipid Tory to Number Ten, is only to be expected, but it misses a growing constituency of deliberate non-voters. My constituency.

I have given my reasons for not voting above the local level before, but there are some counter-arguments that also need to be identified as myths. Like myths of good English usage, once identified, they can be appreciated and then put aside.

Myth 1: people fought and died for universal suffrage, so not voting dishonours their struggle.

Obviously, the first part of this is true. Reformists and suffragettes devoted, and sometimes lost, their lives getting the vote for almost every adult citizen. And whatever the causes and motivations, the Second World War stopped the growth of fascism in Europe.

The question that remains is how to honour that legacy. It would be non-sensical to think that our form of democracy should neither be stagnant nor evolve without popular examination. It is a common fallacy among US conservatives that the founding fathers created and/or revealed true democracy, and that it has not and should not be altered again. The US Constitution was almost immediately amended by the Bill of Rights, and has been amended another seventeen times. Not every amendment was progressive or successful, but the rules for running the federation include rules for changing the rules.

If you believe that democracy can and should evolve beyond nations and federations, and that not voting is one suitable method of effecting that change, then you do more honour to past reformers by following your beliefs than by devaluing your suffrage by giving it to the least-worst candidate for Member of Parliament.

Myth 2: significant localisation can be achieved through election to a higher parliament.

Also covered in previous posts. Power is what drives change, so it is a rare politician that will give power away.

Myth 3: it is better to vote for something with somewhat positive intentions (e.g. Labour) than not vote and allow the election of something worse (e.g. the BNP).

It is easy to think that we have to use every resource to oppose extremism, and it is not obvious that voting in national elections is a negative act. But if our aim is to deligitimise national government then we will have demonstrably succeeded when an MP is elected by only 5% of the eligible voters, whether the winning candidate is Green, Labour or BNP.

It would, I admit, give me great pain if I could contribute to the election of a Green MP but did not. I never said it was easy to stick to your principles.

Myth 4: we are working towards a unified world with one government, which equates to world peace.

If positive political change is driven by utopian vision then it can also be driven by visions that are unhelpful. Utopia by definition is nowhere and therefore unachievable, but some are more unachievable than others.

In science fiction, one-world government is not unusual, possibly so that inter-planetary politics can act as a substitute for international politics, but also because many writers think societies will evolve towards global harmony. In Star Wars and The Fifth Element, advanced planetary civilisations are mostly ordered and peaceful, truly post-modern and technocratic.

This assumes a homogeneity that cannot be desirable, surely? Our cultures have more to distinguish and differentiate themselves than colourful languages, clothes and customs. And that is within a single species. Self-determination preserves the differences in value hierarchy, moral code and cultural history, and self-determination cannot be achieved under a one-world government.

More practically, bigger government simply means greater alienation of the electorate. Opinions are formed and elections won and lost by popular media. As the political race gets bigger, the differentiators between candidates are reduced to the soundbite, the smile and the wave.