Democracy and the nation state

Greg Schofield g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au
Sat Nov 17 23:45:42 PST 2001


Even within proletarian socialism representative government has some future ahead of it. Yet we seem satisfied with putting up with all sorts of abuses simply because it is a bourgeois state. Our defacto position is pure oppositionalism, we don't posit any realisable alternative (that is anything which the bourgeoisie might make room for), we don't attempt to reform the electoral system, change the constitution or procedures. We do not even raise the demand for such reforms - though the bulk of population has little regard and practically no-faith in these institutions.

Having witnessed the US presidency being rorted, in my own country electoral borders changed, jerrymanders and thousands of other corrupt manipulations, we on the left have nothing concrete to say.

Of course no system can exclude the effects of real power, but the struggle to change the obvious flaws creates counter-powers and this has been wholly neglected.

There are reforms such as multiple representative electorates, preferential and compulsory voting, disenfranchising companies from bribing parties that could be raised as immediate demands. But we are silent on them.

However, ask yourself, how can international socialism derive except through changes forced on states around the world, and how can this force be mustered except through specific concrete objectives. What state in the world would not have broadly similar contradictions and broadly similar solutions to such problems?

Changing the face of democracy does not in itself deliver proletarian power, but I cannot see in a modern state how that power can be successful without struggling to redefine in class terms what constitutes democracy - one part of this is raising simple arguable reforms for a better democratic constitution.

Greg Schofield Perth Australia



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list