By (Guest Contributor) Pink Panther

Local body elections were held last month. According to the Local Government New Zealand website, 41.4% of those eligible to vote did so. This is a decline of 7.6% since 2010. Within the various councils, voter turnout ranged from 63.9% in the Westland District to 34.0% in the Lower Waikato District., There were no big surprises in the results, except that the country’s first Green Party mayor – Aaron Hawkins – was elected in Dunedin. At least one election is still being disputed: the election results in Wellington in which the ousted mayor Justin Lester is calling for a recount after he was defeated by Andy Foster by a margin of 62 votes.

Low voter turnout in the local body elections does not come as much of a surprise. When I asked people why they didn’t vote in these elections they either disliked the candidates or they just didn’t see the point. When looking at some of the statistics it becomes clear there are underlying problems within local government politics. Out of the sixty-seven territorial authorities, forty-one had no change in mayors. Of those that had no change, six were elected unopposed. Furthermore, there were twelve mayors that faced only one opponent. Just like central government elections, it’s mostly the same people who have run for office and the same people who have been re-elected. Local councils are overwhelmingly dominated by middle-aged or elderly white people with backgrounds in the senior levels of bureaucracy, business leadership or key positions within community organisations such as trusts. They promise lower rates and greater accountability but almost invariably raise the rates and use their position to pass by-laws and award contracts that benefit people like themselves. Whether they label themselves liberal, conservative or anything in between there is little difference in their behaviour once they take their seats on a council.

I would never deny that racism and sexism are real things but those aren’t the fundamental problems underlying the system of governance in this country today. Rather, it’s because running for election is expensive and time-consuming: two luxuries that working-class people, particularly Maori and Pacific Islanders, do not have. Even if those from disadvantaged social groups do get elected onto local councils they tend to become just like all the other councilors. It’s because most of the councilors or mayors who belong to these under-represented groups – LGBT+, Maori, Pacific Islanders, Muslims, etc – are from the same economic classes as those they criticize.

While Anarchists generally do not participate in council elections there are one or two (and former Anarchists) who have run for local community boards. These represent various areas within a council’s jurisdiction and are elected by residents within a certain community to advise the council on matters that are specific to that community. It doesn’t have voting powers on a council nor can it pass or enforce by-laws. Thus, because they have no real power but are elected by their communities some think it’s acceptable to run for them. The reason why Anarchists should not vote for, or be involved in, community boards are for the same reason why they should not run or vote in council elections.

What is that reason?

Local councils may be more grassroots than the central government, but they are still part of the governing apparatus of the State. They exist because the State has established them, not because they are genuine grassroots organisations chosen by, and accountable to, all the people all the time. In Aotearoa, many laws passed by central government are enforced by local government. This includes liquor laws, the Resource Management Act (which determines how land and other resources can be used “in a sustainable way”) and various animal welfare laws. For this reason, opposition to the State must also include opposition to local councils. The one thing that all Anarchists have in common is our opposition to the State and other hierarchical structures. Whether community boards, local councils or Parliament, they are all part of the State.

While it may be obvious to people who are well versed in our beliefs why Anarchists are opposed to the State and other hierarchical structures, it isn’t always obvious to those who are not. Let’s face it, there are far more such people around than there are of us. Therefore, it is appropriate to outline some of the main reasons why many Anarchists oppose the State in its various manifestations.

The first is that the State is immoral. There is no social contract between the governed and the governing. With the stroke of a pen (or the tap of a keyboard) human and civil rights can be swept aside. New Zealand/Aotearoa has a reputation for being a sleepy and peaceful place. This is a lazy assumption that ignores a long history of colonialism and land robbery. Even those who acknowledge this would often prefer to consign all that to the past but there are also examples of where civil liberties were ignored by the government in more recent decades. One of the most infamous examples took place during the Watersiders Strike in 1951. The government passed legislation that banned people from feeding, housing, clothing or assisting striking watersiders in any way. This law was widely flouted by many people who saw this as State repression. The fact laws that violate basic civil liberties and human rights have been enacted here in the past means it could happen again, especially if it perceives a threat either to it or the economic system under which it operates.

The second is that the State is economically exploitative. Anarchists oppose Capitalism and regard the modern State as the agent, and creation, of modern Capitalism. Anarcho-Syndicalists, for example, argue that the State, by supporting the Capitalist system, protects private property, defends the privileged position of the wealthy and oppresses the workers who are responsible for producing everything worthwhile. At a global level, the State protects the elites of the industrially developed countries through pro-Capitalist institutions such as the G20, the World Bank, and the IMF.

Another is that the State negatively impacts on human nature. All hierarchical forms of authority command, control and corrupt human nature, and therefore they should be abolished. The State can coerce a person by commanding her to act against her will (e.g. to fight in a war), forcing the individual to suspend reason and removing autonomy. Furthermore, being subject to State authority or control crushes a person’s initiative and creativity and smothers individual self-realisation. In addition, those in positions of authority within the State apparatus are corrupted by their wealth, power and status and lose contact with the ‘true’ cooperative and selfless aspects of human nature. Anarchists also maintain that the State acts corruptly by abusing those under its authority, relying on force to impose its will and defending inequality.

However, while it is should be clear now why Anarchists oppose the State the answer as to how the State should be eradicated is still up for debate. There are several schools of thought around this. Some argue for a withdrawal from society and attempts to create alternative structures in the belly of the beast. Personally, I think this is selfish and is fooling yourself. No matter how hard you try, we are all locked into the same complex economic system and ignoring others won’t solve that. The philosopher William Godwin (1756-1836) who is at least an influence of sorts over some anarchists, maintains that the spread of education, science, and philosophy will encourage the development of a moral society containing rational, autonomous and benevolent people who can exercise their judgment well without the involvement of the State. Over time, this transformation in human consciousness will make the State irrelevant and it will wither away, leading to a stateless society. We probably shouldn’t ignore any useful insights from this moralistic argument, but it assumes that people are consistently rational, autonomous and benevolent when this is not necessarily the case. Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76) endorses direct action (such as targeted violence, mass strikes, refusal to pay taxes and rejection of conscription) to trigger the revolutionary will of the people and ignite a popular revolt against the State. The ensuing social revolution from below will galvanize the people into action, expose statist oppression and lead to the violent destruction of the State. On the few occasions when Anarchists have made widescale attempts to create the kind of society we would like, such as in Catalonia during the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War, this has been the means by which this has been achieved. Despite its faults, this seems to be the model that has come closest in reality to the mass change we would like.

The one thing that the various options do not call for is for Anarchists to get involved in any hierarchical system in the belief that change can be achieved from within. Anyone who calls themselves an Anarchist who votes in elections or runs for office in any hierarchical system is betraying the most basic of our principles. Thus, while the local government elections may have acted as a useful distraction for those who still care about such things, they merely confirmed for those of us who describe ourselves as Anarchists why elections and hierarchical systems of governance have nothing to do with democracy or the will of the people, let alone the establishment of a fair and just society for the working classes. True, our movement and its supporters are very small in numbers and influence here now, but we should not add to the difficulties of this by choosing the wrong approaches to tackling the current system.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Tumblr



Like this: Like Loading...