The agony of choice
The agony of choice
About the eternal farce of “democracy”
For a better understanding of bourgeois democracy, we recommend reading the articles linked within the text.
After the presidential debate between former President Trump and incumbent Biden, it seems that the realization that Americans only have the choice between plague and cholera has widely reached even parts of the bourgeois media.
“Biden shocks even Democrats, Trump lies,” writes Der Standard.
Most Americans, apart from the hardliners, seem to agree that neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump is a truly suitable leader for the world’s largest economy.
“Most voters want Biden to step down, but don’t agree on a suitable alternative” — In a “Morning Consult” poll, 60% of respondents (both Republicans and Democrats) expressed that Joe Biden should resign – but only 30% knew who exactly the alternative should be.
And yet,they will vote.
Despite a large portion of Americans recognizing that this election is more than ever questionable as “democratic,” they still go to the polls — a vivid illustration of the firm grip that the illusion of “democracy” has on bourgeois society.
People and Power
The term “democracy“, which is Greek for “people’s rule“, as defined by the German federal government; “In this form of government, the people exercise sovereign power“, a simpler version used by the United States is “This means that our government is elected by citizens“.
The government is appointed by the people, the “sovereign power” emanates from the people — that’s what bourgeois democracy claims.
In representative democracy, which is preferred for bourgeois rule, there is a gap between the people and the sovereignty, represented by their respective representatives — that’s the point of the system.
The representatives, primarily subordinate to the constitution, serve as buffers between the will and interests of the people and the state, which claims to represent them.
Amid all the criticism the German media now directs at the grim prospects for American politics, they often forget that even their own rule seems to emanate from the people.
People and rule
The term “democracy“, which is Greek for “people’s rule“, as defined by the German federal government; “In this form of government, the people exercise sovereign power“, a simpler version used by the United States is “This means that our government is elected by citizens“.
The government is appointed by the people, the “sovereign power” emanates from the people — that’s what bourgeois democracy claims.
In representative democracy, which is preferred for bourgeois rule, there is a gap between the people and the sovereignty, represented by their respective representatives — that’s the point of the system.
The representatives, primarily subordinate to the constitution, serve as buffers between the will and interests of the people and the state, which claims to represent them.
In all the fuss that German media now directs at the grim outlook for American politics, they often forget that their own rule also seemingly emanates from the people.
German bourgeois democracy
In bourgeois democracy, the people are empowered to elect “representatives” in parliament through approved parties.
The approval of a party depends on whether the Federal Returning Officer considers the party to be sufficiently grounded in the Basic Law; traditionally, this officer is the president of the Federal Statistical Office, who is not elected by the people but appointed internally.
If a party is “anti-democratic“, meaning, among other things, that it is consistently Marxist, it is generally assumed that such a party will not be allowed to run or will be banned if it grows sufficiently large.
Except: If the Federal Returning Officer considers the party to be of too little significance, it may be allowed to participate — after all, it makes no real difference (for example, the DKP is tolerated for this reason).
In this context, any political orientation that is incompatible with the ““libertarian-democratic fundamental order” — which includes basic rights like the right of corporations to property (the means of production) — must be considered anti-democratic; such parties are unlikely to come to power legally.
It can be inferred that any party seeking fundamental change cannot come to power through legal means; bourgeois democracy is not “people’s rule,” but a power structure fundamentally unchangeable and an illusion of bourgeois rule.
Which representatives are legitimized every four years through elections can, of course, have limited influence over taxation, national debt, or migration policy — but since 1992, many of these actual powers have been transferred to the autocracy of the European Union.
Decisions such as tariffs imposed by Germany, whether in the current critical discourse about e-cars with China, or competition rules against other European countries, are ultimately made by the unelected, non-bourgeois democratic EU Commission.
This points to the fact that decisions are made by a body that is not directly accountable to the people.
Nothing new
Yes, I would even argue that the realization that “democracy” is not really one at all is at least known to a large part of the people in Germany.
The disillusionment of voters with bourgeois democracy manifests in the general understanding; Voting doesn’t matter anyway, which is reflected both in the number of “long-term voters” and non-voters.
According to representative surveys, around 53% of people in Germany are either not interested or only minimally interested in politics.
About a quarter of Germans simply do not bother to visit the polling station.
The bourgeois democrats cannot accept this; “(Voting) is a privilege that many people in other parts of the world would love to have” (Spiegel) — but what kind of rule is a “privilege”?
The arrogance with which bourgeois democrats speak about their system is not reflected in the opinion of the people, who apparently exercise power:
The “political apathy“, which bourgeois democrats often attribute to “unfulfilled election promises“, is actually a rejection of bourgeois democracy as a whole.
If we understand a political party as Weber does — as a society based on advertising “with the aim of providing its leaders within an association with power and its active participants with (ideally or materially) chances (of pursuing substantive goals or gaining personal advantages, or both)” — then “false election promises” are not just a symptom of individual “bad” politicians but a consequence of the entire bourgeois party system, which relies on advertising and competition.
As in all aspects of bourgeois society, competition that promotes quantity over quality also causes the “false election promises,” many of which are impossible to realize within bourgeois lobbying democracy — because, after all, a party must sell itself.
To help with the costs of selling, “lobby groups” of large corporations influence politics with millions of euros, which parties then implement.
The mere fact that corruption, which beautifies the BRD, is called “lobbying” and influences Germany’s domestic and foreign policy, speaks against the democratic character of this “democracy”.
While consumer protection agencies shield consumers from false promises in the marketplace, there is no institution that protects voters from false election promises — mainly because realistic promises would expose the farce of bourgeois democracy.
The two biggest concerns for people in Germany are rising living costs (a scary term in itself) and unaffordable housing; two problems that bourgeois politics cannot address without fundamental changes in property ownership.
When coalition politicians meet monthly with real estate lobbyists[1] and the increase in living costs is ultimately driven by profit motives, which are presented as “crisis symptoms,”a coalition cannot be surprised by the rise of the AfD.
Since bourgeois democracy, which fundamentally protects property rights, is not “endangered” by right-wing extremist forces; these “antidemocratic” forces were actually born from it.
By protecting the fundamental mechanisms of this system, which underpin the contradiction between the rich and the poor, West and East, capital and labor, bourgeois democrats cannot claim to be surprised by rejection of their system.
How can this “democracy” be the rule of the people if all electoral options fundamentally pursue the same agenda?
The democracy that the Federal Agency for Civic Education calls the “best possible form of government” is probably exactly that: the best possible form of rule for maintaining bourgeois society.
The choice between plague and cholera, which bourgeois elections always boil down to, can be seen as the rule of the people, but only insofar as deciding on a wall color can be seen as house construction.
Nevertheless, the illusion that one has a choice persists.
From this illusion and the thesis that this system is “a privilege“, the fairy tale of “democracy” is reproduced — because there’s nothing better, so one should be thankful.
Elections confirm the citizen’s view that they are free.
If reality then does not match election promises, it is either because others have voted wrongly or politicians lied — but not because of the system itself, which blurs into the idea that voting is a free act.
Meanwhile, while criticizing Russia and others, bourgeois democracies boast that they at least allow a choice between plague and cholera — in Russia, there is simply the plague directly.