‘What the parties that administered the democratic transition couldn’t do in 30 years; the working class accomplished in a few months’. These were from Pablo Abufom et al after Chile’s protests forced a referendum over the adoption of new constitution. These protests were highlighted in 2020, and saw working-class organization, from feminist groups to student groups, in a constant barrage at the Chilean establishment. Then something happened; Gabriel Boric was voted into power, the election of the seemingly centre-left president hailed as a consequence of what the Chilean working class had done. But, with time, the momentum those protests had created and the sense of awakening they had ignited faded in the face of electoralism, and that new constitution was rejected.
If that’s a touch too far from view, let’s try something else that happened in 2020, when the Black Lives Matter protests found their place amidst American athletes. Suddenly, NBA players were calling to boycott and put a halt to games, while those from the WNBA had already taken a similar stance earlier. It was another move that threatened to shake the establishment, or at least some notable aspects of it. Then what happened next? Barack Obama spoke to Chris Paul, leader of the Players Union at the time, and urged the players to forgo boycotts and halts and use that momentum to push voter turnout instead. And, once again, in the face of actual organising and movements with the potential to lead to actual material change, electoralism came in, in the guise of a solution, to wither it down, co-opting and defanging it. Then, it went from marching on the streets about ‘Defund the Police’ to ‘Vote for Biden, he’ll defund the Police’. Plain and simple, this is what electoralism under capitalist ‘democracies’ does.
The Nigerian presidential election is around the corner. For the past year, it’s being billed by many as one can’t afford to make a wrong choice on. The word is ‘we must get it right’, even though all three main candidates have pretty much come out and said there is no ideological difference among them, and two recently published articles in The Economist whereby you can’t tell which from which.
But this isn’t about the candidates and the ideological similarities. This is about the concept of electoralism in itself, electoralism under the helms of the bourgeoise state, and the elevation of electoral politics as the only kind of democracy that’s possible. On its own, elections are not inherently pointless, they could serve a purpose in democratic spheres. But they’re tools, and not a weapon, of democracy. Nowhere has any sort of liberation come with merely voting once every four years and going back to doing nothing.
This is the smokescreen liberal democracy wants to keep selling you. That the alienation of our capacity for self-rule is what will finally set us on the right path. And that’s never been the case. The thing with electoralism, and seeing it as the only source of democratic participation, is that instead of the people exercising power, we become administered by power. We transfer that power to supposed ‘representatives’ who are actually not accountable to us, and don’t work for us.
I remember pointing out the near-futility of just voting a while back, and someone responded by saying ‘we can’t not vote’ and ‘this is like being offered food from three places, and choosing not to eat at all because none of the places are good enough’. In truth, merely voting, especially in the Nigerian political scene, is like being told you can choose someone who’ll decide how you’ll be fed, instead of choosing to eat yourself. And that’s the thing about electoral politics; who sets the options? We had no say in any primaries, or in how they were arranged. We were just given three main candidates and told to choose one, hence we’ve been going with the contradictory rhetoric of ‘we must get of right’ and ‘we should choose a lesser evil’.
Another thing that makes mere electoral politics weak is the issue of political consciousness. How many mainstream candidates and parties run on agendas like ‘less policing’, ‘repealing the SSMPA’, or ‘abortion rights’? Barely any. And they don’t because there has never been a sustained clamour for it on the streets. There has never been a prolonged and organised mass movement towards that goal, or at least with that demand. If one ever happens, best believe mainstream candidates will have them on their agenda. Make no mistake, that doesn’t mean they’ll do it (they’re political scoundrels anyway), it just means they’ll talk about doing it. Why? Because electoralism does nothing to elevate our political consciousness, rather it just feeds off whichever one we have developed at the time. It’s not about our rights. It’s about our votes. It’s not about grassroots movement and political education, it’s about securing two-thirds of the votes on offer, and as such, it’s about appealing to whatever stream of consciousness is rife at the time; even if it is reactionary ones. That’s why these leading candidates in 2023 continue to use terms ‘restructuring Nigeria’ without saying anything concrete, material, feasible, or coherent to back it up. It’s why they keep using lingo like ‘saving Nigeria’, ‘continuing the good work’, or, if they’re generous, ‘taking us from consumption to production’ or ‘elevating GDP’. There’s no concrete language to back up what that means, and how it might be done, and why there is a direct correlation between that and improving the standard of living of Nigerians. And that’s because there’s barely any political consciousness beyond that at this point. Simply put; electoralism is not just LIMITED, it is also LIMITING.
In 24 years, we haven’t given birth to or pushed forward any mass political movement beyond voting, and with the other flaws of mere electoral politics, the fact that it’s thoroughly unscientific can be added. Nothing is set in stone, including the concept of democracy. Society is ever-changing and ever-evolving, whereby we’re supposed to come across new modes of socialisation, politicisation and more. The concept of democracy is by no means fixed, and our new actions are meant to be informed by newer kinds of analyses and syntheses we’d have made. Instead, we’re propagandised to think there’s only one path to any sort of liberation, and at that, a flawed part that’s set by the oppressive forces we supposedly look to dismantle.
‘But people fought and died for the right to vote! Isn’t this a disregard for their efforts?’. No, actually, it’s a recognition of their efforts to think beyond voting. In fact, saying ‘people fought and died’ for the vote isn’t so much an endorsement of voting, but rather an understanding that mass, militant and organised movements will always get things done better, faster, and more concrete than just ticking next to a box or putting some paper inside one. People fought for the right to vote, they didn’t vote for it.
Make no mistake, this isn’t a call to shun voting in all its essence. This isn’t an eff you to electoral politics. Voting has its benefits; from advancing political education to helping in recognition of rights. But none of these are barely done in the Nigerian electoral sphere, and even if they were, electoral benefits need not be the only go-to-guide for democracy. Even with the purest intentioned candidates, or the most radical of politics, placing electoralism above mass education always leads to being absorbed the oppressive forces you want to dismantle. Because bourgeoise elections are increasingly financial, you start to make compromises for donors, for media space, for advertising slots. As such, you’re being co-opted, stripped of your radicalism, and supposedly good intentions, and in the name of compromise, you’ve given up liberation for being accepted by the state.
So, what should we do instead?
‘Alright, woke idealist, since you’re against elections, what should be done instead’.
The fact that electoral politics in the Nigerian scene is thoroughly limited, at best, and at worst, facetious, isn’t an alien thing. Most of the masses know this, which is why voter turnout continues to plummet with every election cycle.
But it’s also key to not just talk about why electoral politics is nowhere near enough, but also what can be done instead. So, what can be done instead?
Obviously, socialist revo…. Okay hang on. Let’s pretend for a second that we can start to have the chance to build any real democracy without a violent or armed uprising against the forces of oppression. Let’s assume we can try to build a new way without making sure the establishment become incapable of carrying on in the old way. Let’s assume this is possible, and start asking what if.
So, what if we had participatory and direct democracy instead? What if, instead of simply putting papers into a box every four years, our neighbourhoods elected people from districts and households, and those people made decisions after consultation with us?
What if we revamped our constitution by embarking on a journey of consulting the nationwide population, and we implemented it after approval from a vast majority of the people.
What if we had a system in place where we didn’t need to wait every four years or eight years to take out an elected official, but we could do it in a week?
What if our representatives met with us every three months for accountability sessions, where we talk about whether or not they’re on their way to accomplishing the goals we set out as a household/neighbourhood/district/residence.
What if we could have a say on housing, land redistribution, healthcare, and education. What if we voted on those aspects instead of just who becomes president or governor?
Obviously, none of these points are set in stone, or should be taken as a bible. These proposals are doable, given the fact that they’ve been and they’re being in other places. But they can and should be criticised, analysed, and observed in terms of implementation, feasibility, effectiveness and whatnot. Some of these might not work. None of it might. Again, it’s about analysing and examining our environment and evolving with it, political, socially, economically.
However, that should only open room for us to analyse beyond what we have now. We shouldn’t deem any future implementation as unfeasible and then simply return to this defective and rigged structure because that’s all we know. There’s more to democracy than just names in a box, every four years. The time to think beyond mere voting is long overdue.
Comments