Upcoming Events

National | Politics / Elections

no events match your query!

New Events


no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Fergus Finlay and the maternity hospital ‘gotcha’ trap

offsite link Irish Examiner and fake news Anthony

offsite link Labour Party: The unvarnished truth Anthony

offsite link Humanity: Zero chance of survival Anthony

offsite link RTE gives balance – accidentally? Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link Nick Hudson Coming to London ? Get Tickets Now Tue May 17, 2022 18:00 | Will Jones
Nick Hudson of PANDA is coming to London on Thursday May 26th to deliver ?The Quest for Open Science?, after which he will be interviewed by Jeffrey Peel from the New Era and take questions from the audience.
The post Nick Hudson Coming to London ? Get Tickets Now appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Don?t Panic Mr Monkeypox! Social Distancing Returns Due to New Viral Panic Tue May 17, 2022 16:53 | Toby Young
At least one medical practice in West London has reintroduced social distancing to reduce the risk of patients contracting Monkeypox. This, in spite of the fact that there are only nine cases so far in the U.K.
The post Don’t Panic Mr Monkeypox! Social Distancing Returns Due to New Viral Panic appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Are All Britain?s Current Woes Traceable to a Group of Entitled ?Tory Toffs? at Oxford in the 1980s? Tue May 17, 2022 13:00 | Toby Young
Simon Kuper's book about how a small group of 'Tory Toffs' who were at Oxford in the 1980s masterminded the Brexit project to reclaim their aristocratic birthright is highly entertaining, but not convincing.
The post Are All Britain’s Current Woes Traceable to a Group of Entitled ‘Tory Toffs’ at Oxford in the 1980s? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Forget Science ? Climate Now Has a Central Role in The Culture Wars Tue May 17, 2022 11:26 | Chris Morrison
You might think that if you debunk patently silly extreme weather claims, the entire fear agenda will go away. Think again. Climate change is now firmly embedded in the culture wars surrounding race, identity and gender.
The post Forget Science ? Climate Now Has a Central Role in The Culture Wars appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Would the U.S. Side With Ukraine?s Far-Right Against Zelensky? Tue May 17, 2022 10:10 | Noah Carl
Why didn't the US back Zelensky? The New York Times wrote earlier this year that his government could be overthrown by far-right groups if he ?agrees to a peace deal that in their minds gives too much to Moscow?.
The post Would the U.S. Side With Ukraine?s Far-Right Against Zelensky? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Ukraine's military nuclear program Thu May 26, 2022 19:03 | en

offsite link Chinese Hypothesis on US Military Biological Experiments Wed May 25, 2022 21:41 | en

offsite link ?House of Russian War Crimes? inaugurated at Davos Tue May 24, 2022 17:19 | en

offsite link US Armed Forces will have to pay with their blood: General Milley Tue May 24, 2022 16:36 | en

offsite link A new war is being prepared for after the defeat in the face of Russia, by Thier... Tue May 24, 2022 10:00 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Anarchism, Elections and all that

category national | politics / elections | opinion/analysis author Sunday April 15, 2007 12:15author by Alan MacSimoin - WSM Report this post to the editors

The Workers Solidarity Movement, along with anarchist organisations throughout the world, refuses to take part in parliamentary elections. Is it not downright weird, or even hypocritical, when anarchists claim to want more democracy than anyone else? Is this a rejection of democracy? Alan MacSimoin tries to answer some of the questions that arise again and again

------So, what’s your problem with voting?-

What problem? We’ve no problem with voting. How do you think we make decisions? We discuss proposals and then register how many are in favour and how many against; or, in plain English, we vote. We do this all the time in our own anarchist organisations, in our unions, in our community groups.

-------But you won’t stand candidates for the Dail, Stormont or Westminster, you won’t even vote in any of those elections.

We anarchists want a society where the division of people into bosses and workers, rulers and ruled, is ended. So, we have no interest in choosing who will be our rulers. It’s pretty ABC, you might as well ask a teetotaller if she wants a pint of Guinness or one of Beamish.

This electoral process involves the mass of working people relying on a few representatives to enter parliament and do battle on their behalf. Our sole involvement is one of voting every few years and perhaps canvassing and supporting the party through donations or whatever.

Anarchists do not believe any real socialist / anarchist society can come about through the good actions of a few individuals. If a few can grant us freedom then a few can also take our freedom away.

Anarchism is about real participative democracy - based on delegation rather than representation with delegates being elected only to implement specific decisions. Delegates would not have the right to go against the mandate of those who elected them. Delegates would enjoy no special rights or privileges and, unlike TDs or MPs, would be subject to instant recall and dismissal if they disobey their mandate. This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the parliamentary idea. We do not seek a few leaders, good, bad or indifferent to sort out the mess that is capitalism. Indeed we argue constantly against any ideas that make it seem such elites are necessary.

-------So why do you call on people to vote in referendums such as the referendum on citizenship in 2003, the one you called the “racist referendum”, or referendums on the European Union?-

There is a big difference between voting in order to make a decision and voting for someone to whom we will hand over decision-making. That’s why we threw ourselves into the referenda on children’s, divorce and abortion rights. We went out knocking on doors, putting up posters, organising public meetings, speaking on TV and radio, and leafleting our neighbourhoods. Referenda are closer to anarchist ideas of direct democracy and are, while flawed, far better than electing a politician to office once every few years.

-------Even if you don’t agree with the current system, you could use elections as a platform for your ideas.-

Yes, it could certainly be argued that we could. BUT it would come at a price – and a very costly price. We would certainly get a few minutes every now and again to say our piece, we might even get the very occasional favourable mention in the newspapers. But the cost of this would be to re-inforce the clientilism and passivity which is an inherent part of the electoral system. Elections are about leaving the vast majority of people in the role of passive observer of political life rather than active participant. Anarchists want to see working class people take an active role in bringing about change in society. Participation in electoral politics has the opposite effect. The cost is too high a price to pay.

-------But wouldn’t it help to build a mass movement if we had people in parliament?-

Talk about putting the cart before the horse. What mass movement has ever been built by having TDs or MPs? To get socialists elected implies that there are already a lot of voters who understand and agree with socialism, otherwise why would they vote for a socialist candidate?

Even on a local scale, look at the election of anti-hospital closure TDs like Paudge Connolly in Monaghan. He was elected because the run down of the health service was already a burning issue and thousands had taken to streets. His election was a result, not the cause. And it didn’t stop the rundown of Monaghan hospital.

The downside of his election is that it reinforced the idea that engaging in ‘real politics’ is the way to get things done. And our rulers just love that, it moves us back to passivity and dependence. We can support our ‘representative’ as opposed to putting on real pressure by means of direct action like strikes and blockades.

-------And why can’t you do both?-

For starters, electioneering almost always results in the party using it gradually becoming more moderate. In order to gain votes, the party must appear "realistic" and "practical" and that means working within the system. If you use language like ‘socialism’, ‘class struggle’ and ‘revolution’, it is said you will frighten off potential voters.

It’s a lot easier to leave any mention of it out of your election leaflets rather than having to explain that it simply means a complete change, and not some gang of demented maniacs marching through streets awash with blood. And that’s just one example. You end up trying not to offend your potential electorate, rather than trying to convince them of your radically different ideas.

History is littered with examples of parties which started off from the position of combining parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics but which became part of the system. From Marxian Social Democracy at the turn of the 19th/20th century right through to the German Green Party in the early years of this decade, we have seen example after example of radical parties starting off from the position of declaring the need for direct action and extra-parliamentary action. Indeed they often refer to their electoral involvement as the least important part of their strategy. In every single example, however, the parties involved have ended up considering the gathering of votes as more important than the message. The revolutionary slogans and policies eventually get watered down in order not to offend potential voters, the elected 'representative' loses touch with the real world.

And even if a political party or organisation approaches elections from a purely cynical point of view – i.e. with no illusions in the system, with no real interest in getting elected but wanting to use the tactic of standing in elections to provide them with a soapbox – and even if that political organisation manages to avoid the watering-down of its message, there is still a fundamental problem. What message is being given to the electorate – is it ‘Get involved, fight back, make a difference’ or is it ‘Get involved and support us to make a difference’? As I’ve said already, it’s impossible to be involved in the electoral process without re-inforcing passivity and clientilism.

The campaign against the bin tax in Dublin is a prime example of a campaign which became subservient to the electoral ambitions of various political parties. In several areas the development of the campaign was stunted by the fact that certain individuals who were going to be standing in the election wanted to be the principal spokesperson and organiser – ‘leader’ if you like - of the campaign in that area. So trying to combine campaigning and electoralism will inevitably lead to the campaigning becoming subservient to the electioneering.

-------But it doesn’t have to be like that, you can’t deny that the vote for Joe Higgins in Dublin West helped to beat the water charges?

Well, I can. It was mass non-payment that defeated the water charges. His own Socialist Party agrees with us on that. Getting a few individuals elected is not what scares governments. If it were, the election of anti-health cuts TDs like Jerry Cowley and Paudge Connolly would have seen hospital wards reopened and waiting lists slashed. It hasn’t, draw your own conclusion.

While we are talking about Joe, I want to say that he is held in high regard by many anarchists as an honest and selfless socialist. And I say this even though Joe's existence makes it a bit harder for anarchists - it's easy to point at him and say "if only we could have a government of people like Joe wouldn't it be so much better?" And it sure would! But there's a problem. For every Joe there's a Tommy Sheridan... or a Pat Rabbitte.... or someone else who thinks he or she is bigger or more important than their mandate.

And even if the power and wealth doesn’t go to their heads, people may change their politics. Once elected, politicians are free to do as they please until the next election. There is no mechanism for enforcing the mandate or withdrawing support if the elected person does not hold to his/her mandate. We have to hand over our decision making to someone we have no effective control over. Society remains divided into order-givers and order-takers.

It could of course also be argued that the political system will always tolerate one or two Joe Higginses. In fact his existence as a TD serves quite a useful purpose – the establishment can point at Joe as an example which proves that their democracy works. ‘After all it can accommodate views right across the political spectrum from Michael McDowell to Joe Higgins’ might be their mantra. But have you ever thought about how the establishment might react if there were a dozen TDs like Joe Higgins? Or if there was any danger of a government being elected on a radical socialist platform? How would international capital react? How long do you think it would take multinational capital to effectively shut down the Irish economy?

As Emma Goldman pointed out, "if the anarchists were strong enough to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough to rally the workers to a general strike.” If we’re to bring about change, if we’re to take on the might of international capital we can only do so in the context of politicisation and direct involvement of the mass of working class people. It can never happen as long as the mass of people remain passive observers or supporters.

-------Does this mean anarchists are just negative, that we should put all our energy into anti-election campaigns?-

We don’t see this as an important activity at all. Our aim is not to have elections where only 10% vote, that would be meaningless in itself. In the U.S.A. only about 30% vote in most elections and it is possible that up to 50% of the population is not even registered to vote. Only someone whose brain is missing, however, would claim this meant the U.S. was more anarchist than Ireland. Not voting may just be a sign of despair ("what's the point"). We want working people actively organising and struggling for the alternative.

What we will do is use the opportunity of a time when people are talking a little more about politics to challenge the notion that important decisions can only be made by a very few, whether they be elected politicians or unelected business tycoons; and put across our anarchist ideas.

The amount of our energy that anarchists put in to specific anti-election campaigns is tiny compared to the amount of time we spend campaigning. Since the last election in the 26-Counties, anarchists in the WSM, as well as producing 24 issues of our newspaper Workers Solidarity (distributing 6,000 copies of each issue) and 7 issues of this magazine, have been involved in huge numbers of campaigns – Shell to Sea, Justice for Terence Wheelock, anti-racism, anti bin tax, workers’ rights, trade union work….. If you look back through issues of our paper or look at our website ( http://www.wsm.ie ) you’ll get something of a flavour. So far from spending huge amounts of energy on anti-election campaigns, the vast majority of our work is aimed at encouraging the involvement of working class people in fighting for their rights, in real political interaction in other words.l

-------If more people abstained it would just lead to the right winning elections, more DUP and PD type politicians.-

Possibly. However anarchists don't just say "don't vote", we say "organise" as well. Apathy is something we have no interest in encouraging.

If a sizeable number of working class people refused to participate in the electoral charade but became actively involved in their trade unions, in community groups and in campaigns actively fighting for change, whichever party was in office would have to rule over a country in which a sizeable minority had rejected government as such. This would mean that the politicians would be subjected to real pressures from people who believed in their own power and acted accordingly. So anarchists call on people not to vote for governments and, instead, organise themselves and be conscious of their own collective power. This can curb the power of government in a way that millions of crosses on bits of paper never will.

-------But, even if the present set-up isn’t perfect, surely you are in favour of democratic rights?-

The right to the vote is just one element in the hard won struggles of workers (and suffragettes!) over the last couple of hundred years. Democratic rights - in short the ability to organise and promote alternative ideas - were an important gain and one that is well worth defending.

Obviously it is preferable to live in a parliamentary democracy rather than a dictatorship. We don’t see any significant immigration into North Korea, Iran or Belarus, but many people are prepared to risk a lot in the hope of getting into Canada, the Netherlands or Ireland. It’s not just about the prospect of having a better standard of living, it’s also about having more liberty.

Even the most flawed democracies are forced to make concessions that dictatorships do not, such as a certain amount of free speech, less censorship, rights for women and gays, a degree of independence for trade unions, letting people come together in organisations to seek changes in the way society is run, and so on.

However we are not naive and we do realise that none of these are absolutes. What we call ‘rights’ can be taken away as well as conceded. The level of freedom we enjoy is set by how much the bosses need to give in order to keep the majority content, plus the amount that is forced from them through struggle. None of the rights we now enjoy were simply handed down as gifts by our rulers, they all had to be struggled for.

In democratic societies life is better and it easier to engage in such struggles. That’s why we are all in favour of defending the ‘democratic rights’ we now have. As Mikhail Bakunin put it “the most imperfect republic is a thousand times better that even the most enlightened monarchy.”

-------And your alternative is what?-

By using direct action we can force politicians to respect the wishes of the people. For example, if a government or boss tries to limit free speech, then anarchists would try to encourage a free speech fight to break the laws in question until such time as they were revoked. In the case of environmental destruction, anarchists would support and encourage attempts at halting the damage by mass trespassing on sites, blocking the routes of developments, organising strikes and so on. If a boss refuses to introduce a shorter working day, then workers should join a union and go on strike or stop working after 7 hours.

Similarly, strikes combined with social protest would be an effective means of stopping authoritarian laws being passed. For example anti-union laws would be best fought by strike action and community boycotts. The example of the water charges in the 26 counties in the late 1990s shows the power of such direct action. The government could happily handle hours of speeches by opposition politicians but they could not ignore social protest.

As Noam Chomsky argues, "within the constraints of existing state institutions, policies will be determined by people representing centres of concentrated power in the private economy, people who, in their institutional roles, will not be swayed by moral appeals but by the costs consequent upon the decisions they make -- not because they are 'bad people,' but because that is what the institutional roles demands."

He continues by arguing that “those who own and manage the society want a disciplined, apathetic and submissive public that will not challenge their privilege and the orderly world in which it thrives. The ordinary citizen need not grant them this gift. Enhancing the Crisis of Democracy by organisation and political engagement is itself a threat to power, a reason to undertake it quite apart from its crucial importance in itself as an essential step towards social change."

So, far from doing nothing, by not voting the anarchist actively encourages alternatives. As the British anarchist John Turner, General Secretary of the United Shop Assistants Union back in the 1890s argued, anarchists "have a line to work upon, to teach the people self-reliance, to urge them to take part in non-political [i.e. non-electoral] movements directly started by themselves for themselves . . . as soon as people learn to rely upon themselves they will act for themselves . . .

We teach the people to place their faith in themselves, we go on the lines of self-help. We teach them to form their own committees of management, to repudiate their masters, to despise the laws of the country. . ."
In this way we encourage self-activity, self-organisation and self-help -- the opposite of apathy and doing nothing.

The anarchist argument is very well put in 'Parliament or Democracy' by Kevin Doyle at
http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html or €3.00 (inc. postage) from the WSM, P.O. Box 1528, Dublin 8.

From Red & Black Revolution 12 - first published online on indymedia.ie

author by Casement Fanpublication date Mon Apr 16, 2007 22:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is a pretty good articulation of the WSMs approach to voting etc. Reading it reminded me of a conversation Ive had wih an older comrade who was close to the sit internaitonal in the 60's. He recalled anarchists in the UK fighting tooth and nail against the welfare state at that time. Their argument was familiar, that welfare leads to an increase of state power over the everyday lives of people, the creation of a disempowering dependancy culture and the tempering, through reform, of the rage of workers which would otherwise build the capacity to overthrow capitalism.

That was the 60s and seventies when the object was an actual takeover of the means of production and a democratic redistribution of wealth. Some people really thought it was coming down, including my pal. noone would now seriously consider objecting to welfare provisions, modest as they are, as they are an obstacle to revolutionary fervour. The destruction of welfare in the US indicates the consequences, increase in child poverty, incresing exploitation of the poorest workers and the forced attendance at religious sessions as food etc is distributed through church's. Its also contributed to a sharp shift to the right in public discourse and policy.

If we go back a little farther, to the end of the 19th century we find that anarchists argued against voting for different reasons than today. then voting was far more an excercise in annointing those in power with a fig leaf of credibility than it is now. There were in most places serious obstacles for the poor to vote and the register of voters was itself entirely unrepresentative. While the outcome may be the same these days, (Ireland has been run by the same gang since the foundation of the state), the actual content of voting is different. The problem has been pushed up river, the party system, the parliamentary system, corruption and fiancial contributions of the rich all conspire to limit the democratic impact of voting on policy and the state.

But to say voting per se is a bad thing we've got to imagine how we'd react if they took it away. I cant see many anarchists now supporting the destruction of welfare provision and I cant see any anarchists I know accepting the end of elections. That said, the point made here, that electoralism is essentially passive and anti electoralism encourages active political participation is a good one.

So Id take the admonishments of the WSM about voting with a pich of salt. They are a political party, if not in name then in fact, and they know enough to know that voting and putting up candidates has no future for radicals as they'd become, well, the labour party.

author by Joepublication date Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Removing the right to vote, presumably through a coup, would of course be something anarchists would object to. Right at the start of modern anarchism Bakunin observed that the worst republic is a 100 times better than a dictatorship. Any context in which the right to vote was removed would be one in which a wide range of freedoms would also be suppressed.

Related Link: http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html
author by BMpublication date Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It's important to distinguish between particpating in elections and believing that there is a parliamentary road to socialism. For a radical, but non-Leninist, position on this question heres an interesting article from the Irish Socialist Network:


author by Islandbridgerpublication date Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I read most of this last night and thought fair enough, it's the single transferable message that the anarchists usually put out at this time. Not much new there.
But then when walking down the quays this morning I saw a poster of 'Cypriot' Brady defaced with the slogan Ken Livingstone mangled for his book title and an ad for the WSM website. Not far from there iirc there was a FF billboard that was defaced.
Now I've no problem with subvertising but just got to wondering why a group who have no truck with elections seem to be expending any energy on it at all. Surely if you practice what you preach you wouldn't be engaging with this process at all and would be off doing things that prove the futility of it.

author by red - nonepublication date Sun Apr 22, 2007 19:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Any answers?

"Whether such a bloc can be formed would in turn depend on whether a result along those lines strengthens the isolationist tendency of the Socialist Party, or encourages that party to accept that others on the left do represent significant forces at a local level. As for other left contenders, some Labour defectors, such as Catherine Connolly in Galway, could do well, but their commitment to bottom-line principles, especially opposition to coalition, is at this stage unclear"

author by Some Guy Somewhere - Not in the WSMpublication date Mon Apr 23, 2007 03:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Now I've no problem with subvertising but just got to wondering why a group who have no truck with elections seem to be expending any energy on it at all. Surely if you practice what you preach you wouldn't be engaging with this process at all and would be off doing things that prove the futility of it.

It doesn't seem that taking the opportunity to point out that elections are disempowering and dangerous at a time when people are talking about them is pointless. Right now when people are falling over themselves trying to discern how many angels are dancing on the heads of the different pins it seems like a good idea to point out that pins are nasty sharp pointy things that can hurt you.

None of which is to say that the WSM did any of what you say or that I speak for them, just observing that your logic seems a bit off, as is your assertion that the WSM wouldn't want to "engage with the process". It would be nice if the process could be engaged with a bit more in that way if it draws people's attention to the the futility of electing another liar that can't be recalled, that you've just given a blank check to.

I bet you've got no objections to "subvertisement" ... it's pretty fucking useless except for selling Adbusters to cynical wasters.

author by Jimmy From ballygomartinpublication date Mon Apr 23, 2007 09:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mr. Someguy Somewhere, would you consider proving the futility of something like standing in elections a worthwhile thing to do?

author by soundmigrationpublication date Tue Apr 24, 2007 16:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Blow me down with a feather duster, those WSM crowd seem to be getting down and jiggy within the young folgeties


Number of comments per page
© 2001-2022 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy