Hypocrisy in our "democratic" system.

This part is to attack our system. The leaders make us think that we are free and can say what we want. Is this true? Are we really voting for someone that will represent our interests? or hers/his? Here goes an attack on our fake "free" society we live in. This isn't democracti but an institutional dictatorship (a dictatorship that loosk like democracy in order to fool the people). These problems will meet the solutions that we, anarchists, want to achieve to have real "power to the people".

A The voter's role in our society.

A.1 We, the voters, can never know if the votes were counted fairly.
A.2 We, the voters, just vote, we don't get the chance to decide.

B Democracy in our society sounds too much like hypocrisy.

B.1 Undemocratic governmental deeds.
B.2 School is in the state's and rich's hands.
B.3 TV, radio, newspaper...in the hands of the rich and their defender, the state.
B.4 Inequality of the candidates make selection not fair from the start.

A

The section A aims at showing you the role played by us the voter in our society and how this gives us only the power to put a name on a paper. Nothing else. We don't take decisions and those that do don't represent our will.

A.1-WE, THE VOTERS, CAN'T EVER KNOW IF THE VOTES WERE COUNTED FAIRLY.

The past elections in the USA was a clear proof on how hypocritical this "democratic" country's establishment actually is. A lot was said about it but there wasn't any protest of big importance. This clearly shows how our minds are being manipulated by the government to produce a conformist society.

The first reason why we should not trust the election results is because some of the votes, counted with computers, were in hands of capitalist companies. This means that they could just lie about the results in order to change the global outcome and give their favourite candidate victory. Such companies would never give victory to a REAL left wing party who would aim at redistributing the wealth, because the owner would loose profit. Remember private companies is nothing but about making profit.

One journalist from the BBC went and interviewed a responsable of the counting of the election. He found out before some evidences that would reveal a surprising event; the GOP payed the counting company, the one with the computers, in order to win the election. When he asked about this evidence he got kicked out!

As well as this, it is quite possible that 20 000 Democratic Black american voters voted for nothing. This means, their votes were not taken. Is this truly democracy? Assuming that our vote is counted, it still does not mean the system we live in is democratic. As we shall see in the following headings democracy in our time is very fake.

A.2-WE, THE VOTERS, JUST VOTE, WE DON'T GET THE CHANCE TO DECIDE.

Who finance the candidates? The main ones are usually financed by bussinesses because most of them defend the company's owner's profits. That is the reason why when they get power they have to satisfy the company's selfish demands and the people was just lied to and in fact used in order to reach power. This system of sponsonring onkly allows companies to be represented not the people. Therefore, demo (people) cracy (power) is not real. It is corporationcracy.

Knowing this, we realize that if those that win will have to defend all those that financed their costly campaign. And since most of the candidates are rich themselves they will only protect their own interests. Therefore a politicy of defence of the ruling class, more freedom to do whatever they want (including firing at will), privatisation, low salary, high risk of loosing job during economical recession...Where is the voter, the worker, the people in here? In the leash of the rich.

In a democratic system the people will have a huge impact on the decisions taken. But in our society they don't. The above statement is one of the facts that we sadly discover after every election campaign. They promise and promise but don't achieve anything. This is because we, the people, don't take direct decision. Our will is not represented in the politicans agenda.

This leads to the following discovery: THE PEOPLE IS BEST REPRESENTED BY ITSELF!

B

After seeing briefly the role of the voter in our society, we should analyse here on B how "democratic" elections are not fair. We will analyse what tricks the cnadidate has to lie to us and how the things around us brainwahs the people.

B.2Undemocratic governmental deeds.

B.3-TV, radio, newspaper...in the hands of the rich and their defender, the state.

The media are very important in society. They influence the population. We watch state/corporate TV, we listen to state/corporate radio, we watch movies the bad people would be in general those that society doesn't like, for example the numerous movies where US amry is protrayed as good in the Vietnamese struggle..., we watch documentary, debate...They all influence our thinking. They all come from state/corporate sources. Since anarchism stands against them both (aren't they the same?, then the media will show a bad image of anarchist ideas.

Another good example of this how we hear the TV say that anarchist are violent, extremists...If you ask anyone in the streets what "anarchy" is they would say it is chaos and a group of criminals. But then ask them what do anarchist stand for and they would not be able to give a clear answer. This sad example prooves how the watcher believes the media and don't take decisions for themselves. They don't go and study but instead they believe whatever the traditional media says to them. This easy brainwash.

Therefore, whoever controls the media controls the people. Many ideas are misrepresented. So "why don't we have our own medias?" But in order to have a TV station, radio or newspaper you need money so only the rich and the government can afford them. It is true that the radio and the newspaper have been taken by many left wing people but they are way less than conservative medias. I think in order to have a better democracy we should let the people have control of the media.

Many people think that journalist are not biased but in fact they are. They work for either the State or the news channel corporation. So this person can not report things that would go against their bosses. If they do the would be kicked out. Who would pay people that would criticise you? The corporation? The State?

An example on how what happened in the EU (European Union) meeting in Sweden. The police shot with live amunition three protesters and still the media protrayed them as good and heroic agents. Those that control the media control our minds, unless we decide to change and break free from these chains.

B.4-INEQUALITY OF THE CANDIDATES'S OPORTUNITIES MAKE SELECTION NOT FAIR FROM THE START.

Many things affect the image of the candidates, thus influencing the final result in the elections. So in order to give a good image they spend a lot of time and money, of course, in portraying a convincing look.

One of these factors is the media's (TV, radio, newspaper...) coverage. I won't just say it. Look for yourself at how much coverage is spent in your countries for each candidate. Watch them and compare who is elected. Apart from elections, look as well during referendums. In Europe, when the countries voted to see whether or not they should join the EU (European Union), 5% of the political ads were against them joining the organisation. 95%, thus, was in favor.

In the US the political ads are short, thirty seconds. Thirty seconds with plenty of well prepared and psycological tricks. Studies have shown that ads have a huge impact on the watcher. Commercial ads "push" us to buy the product. Political ads push us to elect that candidate or option in the referendums.

One example of this is the Republican ad where they put in the word "Democrat" but they don't put it all on the screen in one go it just appears little by little. As the word gets its letters together, in a second, instead of seeing the word "DEMOCRAT" we see the word "RAT". In oder word, what the watchers, without realizing it (subconsciously), see is "democRAT" and end up linking rat to democrat. Of course the republicans denied it. I am not trying to defend the democrats by the way. I am just using this as an example illustrating my point.

But there might exist some countries where the coverage is equal, if you know any e-mail me. But if this was the case it does not mean this country, maybe wonderland, is still democratic. Other things determine this.

Money is one of the main factors. It is unfortunately the most important. With money candidates can have conventions, distribute flyers, stickers, flags, T-shirts, posters etc. They also pay their ads.

During political debates, previous to elections and/or referendum, almost every time, the traditional parties (parties that are always "elected")are the only ones debating. The others are completely ignored. Anyways most of them are just people wanting to get the highest duty of the country and what they debate is how bad each other is. They don't really discuss unemployment, crimes...Instead they focus on how bad the other party dealt with their troubled society when they had power.

If we check who has the highest media coverage and who wins we might just find the same person or the people that end up with the highest percentages in the election. But we should take this into consideration not only during the pre-electoral weeks but also everyday. The news people spend part of their reportages giving a bad image of "real" left wing party (the Democrats in the US are not Left wing nor is the "Socialist" Party in France, nor Labour Party in UK...).

As we have seen, these few examples clearly show that there is no way to change society with elections. Inequal amount of money, time coverage, image, ads...all determine the outcome. As a friend said; "using the elections way is like fighting a down hill war". This will lead to a new form of struggle. We will see later how anarcho-syndicalist want to change society.

Thus...

This section has prooven us that the voter, supposedly those that have power in our society has only the "liberty" to choose a candidate. Many times those politicans have a deal with the vote counting people and end up wining the elections. Sometimes they don't. We may never know if fraud had occured in the elections. Seriously ask yourself how we can know?

If they play clean they still lead an unfair game. All year long the media/school keep on putting propaganda for the traditional parties. You might think this is exagerating but just think: How much do they talk about the traditional parties, compared to the non traditional ones? What image is given to them? The state and the rich control the education and the medias thus they want to give a good image of themselves and a bad one to their opponants.

What about the conventions, propaganda ads (also how they use it to influence us subconsciously), flyers...The candidates need cash for all that stuff so they depend on their sponsor(private bussinesses). To get sponsor they make promise to them and those are the only ones they keep because they are themselves involved through investment in stock exchanges and/or owner of companies. Thus they guarentee a financial support and their interests come first.

Further reading:

Disect an ad.Learn how to see the hidden messages in ads. Found in www.pbs.org

How much cash was spent for the electoral campaigns?

back to anarchism's definition section.