Four Ways Elections Undermine Dissident Movements

December 2nd, 2012

The electoral system coopts and weakens dissent in several ways. One, is that it makes the government look better. Its harder to get people to oppose the government if its elected than if its not elected. Elections have the effect of legitimizing the state because most people think an elected government is legitimate, or at least better than one that's not elected. All serious election campaigns, regardless of the candidate, have the effect of reinforcing this belief.

Second, when a new person takes over, much of the populace usually stops associating past policies and problems with the government and instead gives the new politician a chance, even if its clear that they are pursuing the same policies and recreating the same problems.

Third, it diverts us from more effective actions. While a person can vote and engage in direct action, the fact is we have finite time and resources. Time and resources put into campaigning for a politician are time and resources not put into something more effective.

Fourth, the election of people from grassroots movements (or even just politicians who support your movement) often has the effect of coopting, dividing, and/or weakening your movement. Electing someone to office has a negligible impact on policy. So if someone from your movement gets elected policy won't change much, but rhetoric will. Its a lot harder to campaign against your own people than to campaign against someone who was never on your side to begin with. If an NDP prime minister tries to use lies to justify sending troops to some other country NDP voters are more likely to fall for his lies than if a Conservative prime minister does the same thing.