Political rant under the parliamentary elections, pt 2

This part of the rant is mainly a translation of my reply to a friend’s FB status, where she asked whether people thought voting is worthwhile or not, and why.

In my rant pt. 1, I mentioned how the scenario of the success of the True Finns has been met with horror among my friends. I have sensed between the lines (and even testified explicitly uttered) worry and resentment caused by the “stupidity of the people” and the fact that anyone and everyone has the right to vote.

I’m not sure whether I’m more horrified by the thought of the True Finns gaining power and in what direction that would lead our country, or appalled by the critique against democratic suffrage, uttered even by people I have perceived as civilised and intelligent.

I see democratic suffrage as an intrinsic value, which should not be compromised in any circumstances. Accordingly, I believe voting for the True Finns is just as correct as voting for any other party. As a fundamental premise, I see that one can never, ever vote wrong, as long as the vote is given according to one’s own opinion and conscience and not under exogenous pressure. I get the chills at the mere thought that there be a higher quarter dictating what is “correct voting” or who would be entitled to vote. That has absolutely nothing to do with a democratic constitutional state, which even in its imperfection is (in my opinion) the best we’ve got so far.

What the grounds are for one’s vote and in which direction politics are heading can and should definitely be a topic of discussion. Ignorance fuels hatred and fear, and I see one of the key issues being how information could be passed on more efficiently. Everyone is not capable of being an expert in society with vast knowledge of world history and politics, and I don’t even see that as necessary. But how could we increase the level of knowledge at least beyond that provided by the yellow press, especially when the target audience consists of people who have little, if any, interest in politics, but who nevertheless are members of the society and who have (and should maintain) the right to vote?

I see resentment and condemnation as a very infertile approach – although in all honesty, I have to admit from time to time being also myself offended by people’s opinions. Yet, Voltaire is rumoured to have said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” and it is a value I deeply cherish. Even if I most probably never will vote for the True Finns, I find it good that the party exists. Abolishing it would not abolish the existing dissatisfaction – at worst, there just would not be any means to channel this disaffection, but would stay bubbling under until it would manifest itself in a very uncontrollable and violent way. We have seen this all too many times in history already. Problems need to be tackled with before the outburst, especially when they are made visible already at this stage.

I have sensed from the more or less aware comments by my friends and acquaintances that meritocracy is perceived as the best form of government. Giving the power to the experts? Sure, sounds good. As long as I’d have a say in who’s qualified for being the expert for the whole people. Who, then, would be competent to assess the competency of the expert rulers, and on which grounds would some sectors of the people be left out of this process? And what if the once competent and just rulers are blinded by power and the rule turns into a despotic oligarchy?

I think I’ll stick to parliamentary democracy, as long as true politeia isn't available.

Political rant under the parliamentary elections, pt 1

Sunday is parliamentary election day in Finland. The elections will be very interesting, since the True Finns (Perussuomalaiset) have been alarmingly popular in preliminary polls. The True Finns is a populist, right-wing (on the Finnish scale), NIMBY-ish party, and their possible success has caused mild horror amongst many, especially my friends.

This election is also different for me personally. For the first time I voted for another party than the Greens, namely, the Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto). A long story short: I’ve been utterly disappointed in their work in the government, in which I don’t think they should have entered in the first place. Their negotiation position in a centre-right government with two strong parties was lousy to begin with: the two large parties, the National Coalition Party (Kokoomus) and the Centre Party (Keskusta), would have had a majority in the parliament even without the two smaller parties in the government, so in practice they’d really not have to care about the smaller's opinions at all. A part of good government custom, however, is to stick with the government’s line in votings. In practice, this means that the smaller government parties have to support the line dictated by the bigger parties. (Ok that was exaggerated, but you get the drift.)

To be completely honest, I can’t remember exactly all of the things that put me off during the past four years – we have a saying in Finnish that “the people’s memory is short”, and so is mine. The obvious achievements of the government are e.g. the omission of the employers’ KELA fee, Lex Soininvaara (yes, I do understand the logic behind it, but nevertheless it was a shitty solution) and Lex Nokia. All in all, I recall a lot of facepalming during the electoral period as well as my disappointment steadily growing. Even if the Greens have voted against some decisions, they still as a government party are held responsible. Their last chance to maintain their dignity in my eyes was during the voting for new nuclear plants. The Greens had reserved themselves the right to vote against the plants, and so they did. However, the parliament green-lighted not one but TWO new plants, and so the Greens are now part in a government that gave its blessing to something heavily in contrast with the Greens’ fundamental values. At this point, I think the Greens should have left the government, as they did in protest in exactly the same situation in 2002. There wasn’t much of the election period left anyway, and the government work had already been miserable – and as said, it would have spared their dignity in my eyes (and my vote for them).

The Greens still are the best party for me on paper, but my honour stands against voting for them now after all this disappointment – it feels like sending them a message that their work in the government has been A-OK and no probs entering a pro-nuclear, right-wing government in the future, either. Sorry, can’t and won’t do that.

I’ve anyway waddled somewhere between green/liberal*/left, so giving my protest vote to the Left Alliance wasn’t that difficult a decision. What bugs me the most is that they’re so vaguely for the basic income – the Greens still are the only party that explicitly have taken it in their electoral programme. Thank goodness the Lefts aren’t against it [any more?], but as basic income is a topic immensely important to me, their bland “let’s try to harmonise the social security system in the possible direction of basic income maybe in the very distant future” is very “meh” to me. Well, I guess I’ll have to live with that for now, since I already gave my vote. Hopefully, in the next elections I can either vote for a green party with some re-achieved dignity, or a more pro basis income Left Alliance.

* political liberal, not to be confused with economic (neo)liberal/libertanianist/whatever you wish to call it

Meh