As I wrote in 2019...
I am very sorry for my friends in Brazil. It is hard not to despair.
The source of the problem is easy to understand but hard to fix. A democracy only works in a small state. Because people inevitably vote for their own interests and those of the people around them, the community they can see. Unless they are particularly knowledgeable, they will be unaware of how their vote might impact someone living in very different circumstances. The larger the territory over which their vote matters, the more likely it is to conflict with the interests of someone else. So a vote in Salvador effects Manaus, and a vote in Porte Alegre effects Belem.
Democracy cannot work in a large, disparate country. The centralised and amalgamated power base naturally changes to become a dictatorship (either in name or functionally). And it is also easier to control by vested interests like transnationals and the military. Then a very few people control the fate of the very many.
Federations like the USA, Germany, Brasil, Russia, etc. can only work as loose federations. As one "united state" with centralised government, they become autocratic. We can see the same in the EU as a whole. As a loose federation, it can be fine, making trade agreements and establishing common standards for human rights, etc. But as soon as power is centralised too much, it inevitably becomes undemocratic, no matter what the electoral system.
The only answer is to break up all large states. This is called anarchy and has a bad name. Because the vested powers (including those of hyper-capitalism) know it is their end.
If Brazil was a loose federation of 20 states, each with their own governments, it would be harder for fascism to take root. People are less likely to vote for hate when their own neighbours are the target. It's also much harder for a politician to lie about circumstances when they are visible outside your own door. And even if a smaller state did tip to authoritarianism, countervailing tendencies would soon limit its damage. That state would be isolated (economically and politically) and the voters would feel these hardships.
And in response to prompting...
OK, now I understand more where you are coming from. Thanks for explaining. Let me address your points.
1. The easiest way to govern is a dictatorship. So anything that moves us towards the other pole is good, IMO. Government and decision-making should never be easy. Consensus takes more energy to achieve and is all the better for it.
2. Some people will always be especially committed to political process, for whatever the reason. And others will not, and hence might be seen as being disenfranchised. But this effect is far less in a consensual system that what we have now. Truly the entire populations of many so-called democracies (UK, USA, Canada, Russia) are currently disenfranchised.
3. Your implication that [consensual government] can never work is wrong. You are extrapolating from your own experience. I need only point to the native nations of North America who successfully existed for thousands of years. Along the way there were conflicts and minor ecological damage. But this was tiny compared with what democracy has done... millions of dead, 60% of all species wiped out (today's headline), etc. There is simply no comparison.
4. Volunteer organisations need not have a "recurring self-destruct pattern". My experience is that this does not come from within, if they are properly constituted. That is, with the proper checks and balances that all political systems need. However, many such groups are set up with too much idealism and not enough structure. Where I have seen such groups fail is when fascistic individuals are able to assume control based on this lack of controls. I've been there and, yes, it hurts like hell when that happens.
5. Large states are always dysfunctional. The centralization of power creates a concomitant lack of empathy to local situations. Citizens are estranged from the politicians and from each other. Non-egalitarian interests can take hold, because there are only a limited number of decision points where they need apply force. None of this can happen (or nowhere near as easily) in a system of distributed and shifting power.
Of course there is no perfect system. But it makes no sense to continue in an obviously broken regime that is demonstrably vulnerable to fascism in most every aspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment