British comedian Russell Brand has recently discouraged the disenfranchised youth from voting. His has been a call for a revolution, based on the premise that votes are worthless, especially in relation to bringing about much-needed real change.
Brand is not saying anything new. Non-voting is an age-old strategy, propagated by past libertarians and anarchists for the implementation of a free society based on high morals and ideals.
The strongly held belief that voting does not make a positive difference was summed up best by Emma Goldman, who said: “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
It is easy to see why Brand’s words have resonated with so many. For the first time ever, people in their twenties have a lower standard of living than an 80-year-old pensioner in a nation where highly qualified young people with huge debts are forced to accept the worst-paid jobs on offer.
The current economic climate is blamed. It would be, since the alternative is pointing fingers at the political bullies presiding over the land whose policies are so geared towards the benefit of the rich that they have stopped masking their hatred for the common man, for the poor. Poverty is a disease, a weakness, and it is the fault of those who choose that lifestyle.
Poverty is one of the pillars upon which the established order in Bangladesh rests its house. In a country where people are prepared, without a moment’s hesitation, to risk their lives for a day’s pay, the lengths to which they will go for three square meals a day is the silver bullet for the politicians.
The few thousand who continuously talk about change, and the few hundred amongst them who would use Brand’s logic, are grossly outnumbered by the tens of millions who are only too happy to throw their support behind anyone who will feed them for a few days.
Statisticians find clever ways of turning the misery of poor people into large numbers that make Bangladeshis cheer about the strides made by the country. GDP, NPL, RPL and other acronyms hide the disdain with which the poor are viewed, and the complete lack of will or action on part of the leaders to improve their situation.
Those writing and talking from the comforts of their armchairs do not put themselves in the position of the people on whose backs their careers, like the careers of politicians, have been built. They, like Brand, can say that a person’s vote is worthless when measured against the ability to effect change, because they have given birth to and nurtured such a situation.
They are responsible for elevating politicians, members of parliament, ministers and prime ministers from the position of public servants serving at the pleasure of the common man to chieftains and potentates.
Now, these proponents of democracy talk about its preservation, its necessity. They fail to back their talk with the only action that can serve democracy: that of giving the power back to the populace.
People should not vote, not because their votes are worthless, but because, in a democracy, their votes are their most prized possessions, worth more than their lives.
In a political landscape where decency, sense and values are absent in the leaders, people should not cast their votes for anyone. Politicians are servants of the population, their slaves.
That natural order of things has been reversed by the latter-day ideologues the world over who assist the leaders in playing God.
That is why the British prime minister travels to Sri Lanka to attend the Commonwealth heads of government meeting amidst calls to boycott. His response to the claims that the end of the civil war in the fledgling democracy has seen oppression of minorities and human rights abuses has been to RSVP six months before the summit and include his foreign secretary in his entourage.
China supposedly aided in the preservation of democracy and destruction of the insurgents in Sri Lanka. Considering that even one life is far too high a price to pay for a deeply flawed system of government, seeking the assistance of its antithesis in the name of protecting it is farcical.
The UK endorses it, however, as it is sure to do if something similar were to follow suit in Bangladesh, whose prime minister will also be in attendance. These leaders have taken Churchill’s words to heart: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”