It is a far cry from full, transparent democracy, and only means we get a vote every four or five years. Actually, in the 26 county Irish state constitutionally that term of office for a government can be legally as long as seven years, though this is never enacted by any incumbent.
In Britain in real terms, and where no written constitution exists, there is a two or possibly three-party system, though in recent years more political parties have entered the race but the reality is it is still a two or three horse race. In the 26 county’s we have a system of voting called ‘the single transferable vote’ whereas in Britain the even less democratic ‘first past the post’ system of electing still exists. In real terms in Britain, it is going to be either the Labour or Conservative parties with perhaps the Liberal Democrats helping out one party or the other to form a coalition. In the 26 county’s it is usually a coalition of either Fianna Fail and perhaps Labour or Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens forming a coalition. Either way one of the ‘civil war’ (the pro and anti-treaty sides in the Irish Civil War) parties are the senior and deciding party in such a set up.
Today a revitalised and certainly unrecognisable Sinn Fein have entered the former cosy little set up with the two old enemies, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail burying their differences and forming an unholy alliance to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Sinn Fein are promising the world, as do most of these stooges of the rich and powerful, while in opposition and, as per usual, the government parties are going all out to tell us why the policies of Sinn Fein are unrealistic and will never work. There is nothing new in this bullshit, as that is all these parliaments are, strategies and to that all I can say is, without having much faith in Sinn Fein, they have not yet been given a chance to fuck things up.
One major promise of Sinn Fein is to introduce over a two-term period a fully ‘costed’ single tiered nationalised health service based loosely on the one operated in the United Kingdom (UK). The question is whether the real government, the rich and the powerful, will allow such a service to be introduced? I doubt it but will give Sinn Fein the benefit simply because things cannot be any worse regarding health in the 26-County’s. What perhaps Sinn Fein are not taking into account, is when the Labour government of Clement Attlee brought in the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 they did so on the back of the Second World War and today the wealthy are slowly clawing back the NHS into their private hands.
It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics. Many think they are the same, they are not. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary all have larger budgets than do any incumbent government, most of which is banked outside the state. This is so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Much the same system of free market economics is the case in Britian and all ‘liberal democracies’ around the globe. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment!!
These people are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail these people will still be in charge, certainly economically and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy’ and that has been proven in the past. For example, when in 1964 a well-meaning Harold Wilson and his Labour Party were back in government in Britain, he thought he was, as Prime Minister, to be in charge. He soon found out this was not the case. He soon found out the Governor of the Bank of England decided economic policy, in general, and he just enacted these policies on the Governors ‘advice’. On the political front, with no economic detriment Wilson had a little more success, perhaps his greatest legacy was refusing the US demand for British troops in Vietnam, but this was purely political not economics.
So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all wonder off back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote!!
What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. These were ancient plutocracies but what of today? Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures there, only socialism would provide such structures, but I am deviating. Perhaps the only democratic principle in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward’ every year, sometimes longer but never longer than five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the proletariat, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or collect your cards!
Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics and many others. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business!
If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister, they will economically undermine that person’s governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person into governmental power. Salvador Allende was shot and Augusto Pinochet put in charge. As Karl Marx said well over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive”. This is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, Engels and, a little later, James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and William O’Brien. Today we have had union leaders like Arthur Scargill, National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) Health and Safety officer back in the early seventies, and today Mick Lynch of the RMT speaking out against such a system. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?
To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party to government or, in the 26-County’s usually a coalition of parties, who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class.
A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the capitalist class, or the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!!”
It is very important to differentiate between politics and economics. Many think they are the same, they are not. Yes, governments have budgets to manage the fiscal purse, public money, a minority factor in any capitalist economy, as most of the money belongs to private wealthy individuals. In the 26-County state such people as Denis O’Brien, the Collinson brothers, Michael O’Leary all have larger budgets than do any incumbent government, most of which is banked outside the state. This is so these great patriots do not have to pay tax towards goods and services for the benefit of all, such things as health, housing, education and a decent standard of living for everybody. Much the same system of free market economics is the case in Britian and all ‘liberal democracies’ around the globe. Elected governments are pretty powerless to do anything about these people’s tax avoidance as this, unlike tax evasion, is perfectly legal. In Ireland the state loses up to and beyond 22% of revenue through tax avoidance by the wealthy. When the 26-County state has an open and shut case to collect tax from huge companies like Apple they simply refuse to do so. Why? Because they know these people are larger and more powerful, certainly economically, than the elected government! Or they give us some tale about these firms bringing employment, shit paid, but nevertheless employment!!
These people are often referred to as ‘the ruling-class’ and the clue is in the word, ‘ruling’. Whoever sits in government in the Dail these people will still be in charge, certainly economically and economics will always trump politics in a ‘liberal democracy’ and that has been proven in the past. For example, when in 1964 a well-meaning Harold Wilson and his Labour Party were back in government in Britain, he thought he was, as Prime Minister, to be in charge. He soon found out this was not the case. He soon found out the Governor of the Bank of England decided economic policy, in general, and he just enacted these policies on the Governors ‘advice’. On the political front, with no economic detriment Wilson had a little more success, perhaps his greatest legacy was refusing the US demand for British troops in Vietnam, but this was purely political not economics.
So, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we get the vote every four to five years and elect a party to govern the affairs of the wealthy. We can then all wonder off back to work for these very same wealthy people and absolutely nothing changes, exploitation for profit continues as do redundancies when these wealthy people have no further use for us. Never mind though, we can still bluff ourselves we are really in charge because we get the vote!!
What then is a ‘plutocracy’? A plutocracy is when the wealthy are in charge, usually unelected, as a class. They are the government. Examples of ancient such ‘plutocracies’ would be the city states of Athens, ironically credited with being the originators of democracy, Carthage and Rome. These were ancient plutocracies but what of today? Are our so-called ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’ disguised as democratic systems? After all, in the workplace owned by the wealthy there are no democratic structures there, only socialism would provide such structures, but I am deviating. Perhaps the only democratic principle in the workplace is the election, where applicable, of the trade union representative, or ‘shop steward’ every year, sometimes longer but never longer than five years. We do not elect the boss, or even the chargehand. Many of the wealthy owners of the means of production, having got wealthy out of the wealth created by the proletariat, tell their employees; ‘this is not a democracy’ so get back to work or collect your cards!
Are our ‘liberal democracies’ really ‘plutocracies’? I would suggest they are because irrespective of who we vote into government, the wealthy or ruling-class remain static and still rule. Even in totalitarian evil regimes like Nazi Germany the wealthy were still in power, many were members of the Nazi party. The Nazis were funded by Germany’s wealthy, Theisen, Krupps Armaments and steel producers, Siemens electronics and many others. So, once again a plutocracy, which the Nazis made no secret of, providing it was the wealthy of Germany and not Jewish business!
If the wealthy feel in any way threatened by the policies of a party in government opposition, they will first of all, as was the case with both Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, discredit them via their media. If that does not work and such a person becomes Prime Minister, they will economically undermine that person’s governments policies. If that doesn’t work, as was the case in Chile, they will liquidate that person, dissolve the government, and put their own person into governmental power. Salvador Allende was shot and Augusto Pinochet put in charge. As Karl Marx said well over a century ago “the bourgeoisie force the proletariat to take dangerous, low-paying jobs, in order to survive”. This is as true today as it was in the days of Marx, Engels and, a little later, James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and William O’Brien. Today we have had union leaders like Arthur Scargill, National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) Health and Safety officer back in the early seventies, and today Mick Lynch of the RMT speaking out against such a system. The question remains, do we live in a ‘democracy’ even a liberal one, or a ‘plutocracy’? Who holds real power, the government or the wealthy?
To briefly summarise, in a ‘liberal democracy’ we elect a party to government or, in the 26-County’s usually a coalition of parties, who all usually go back on their election pledges. Once in office they set about governing for the benefit of the wealthy, the affairs of the wealthy and a few crumbs left over for the majority of the electorate, the working-class.
A ‘plutocracy’ is government by the wealthy, for the wealthy and only the wealthy. It is they as a class who actually govern, or misgovern, and not representatives of that class as is the case in a ‘liberal democracy’. This is why many more far-sighted people see governments in ‘liberal democracies’ as “stooges” of the capitalist class, or the wealthy. The differences between the two systems are minimal to say the least! Is it worth going out to vote? Yes, it is the only democratic right we have, even if it is pretty meaningless, but nevertheless do exercise it. Finally, to quote Ken Livingstone “if voting changed anything, they’d abolish it!!!”
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
No comments