Dirty Politics and Capital
Nicky Hager's latest political expose "Dirty
Politics" has exposed attitudes towards power which could be called
"entitled", as well as the toxic interpersonal relationships which
drive the people at the centre of our political system. It is in some ways
shocking, the lack of self censorship revealed by emails and messaging, shows
shrill hatred towards not just towards particular individuals, but entire groups
of our fellow humans. One cannot help but wonder if the attitude of Cameron
Slater towards Cantabrians is shared by our parliamentary leadership, and
indeed if this has lead to many of their current miseries.
But though the litanies of immoralities, jingoism,
jobism etc . . looms large, there is a central premise within Nicky's book
which must be noted. There is a general decline worldwide in our democracy, it appears weak
compared to what it once was. Voter turnouts throughout developed countries
are generally in decline, there is increasing alienation between voters and
their representatives and a proliferation of minor parties, some, such
as golden dawn are openly fascist. Nicky suggests a quote by Simon Lusk
provides some illumination to this quandary.
“There are a few basic propositions with negative
campaigning that are worth knowing about. It lowers turnout, favours right more
than left as the right continues to turn out, and drives away the
independents.’ In short, many people stop participating in politics. If
politicians cannot be trusted, if politics looks like a petty or ugly game, and
if no one seems to be talking about the things that matter, then what’s the
point of bothering to participate? Just leave them to it. There are innovations
in US Republican Party thinking on this point; election tactics do not have to
be just about winning votes; they can be equally effective if groups of people
in society just stop voting altogether. We should not assume that everyone
thinks low voter turnout is a bad idea. Sitting in the midst of the negative
politics was John Key…"
- Simon Lusk.
The ideas within this quote are problematic to
say the least. The idea is that revulsion with the political elite will
essentially tarnish all political opposition as well, that politics will become
a stinking corpse that none would dare touch from fear of the disease. But
corpses must be buried, and this system would ultimately create its own
gravediggers. Even the most violent, bloody, dirty political regimes in history
are eventually confronted with social forces which seek their destruction, this
has been repeated a hundred times over. Undermining parliament in the long term
threatens the very power these parties seek to win, it's contradictory to
engage in such politics by choice.
Secondly the idea has a circular logic to it,
dirty politics depresses voter turnout through alienation. This alienation then
leads to lower turnout strengthening the practice of dirty politics. More dirty
politics are practiced lowering voter turnout further, strengthening the
practice of dirty politics. This forms a perfect circle without a history or
future, nor does it offer any explanation for the rise of dirty politics or
most importantly how to fight it?
To this end I would like to advance an alternate
perspective on the context within which dirty politics must be understood. An
international context with clear historic, economic and ideological origins.
"With this generalised involution has come a
pervasive corruption of the political class… Commonplace in a Union that
presents itself as a moral tutor to the world, the pollution of power by money
and fraud follows from the leaching of substance or involvement in democracy.
Elites freed from either real division above, or significant accountability
below, can afford to enrich themselves without distraction or retribution.
Exposure ceases to matter very much, as impunity becomes the rule. Like
bankers, leading politicians do not go to prison… But corruption is not just a
function of the decline of the political order. It is also, of course, a
symptom of the economic regime that has taken hold of Europe since the 1980s.
In a neoliberal universe, where markets are the gauge of value, money becomes,
more straightforwardly than ever before, the measure of all things. If
hospitals, schools and prisons can be privatised as enterprises for profit, why
not political office too?"
- Perry Anderson.
Here Perry Anderson offers an alternative explanation
for the spread of dirty politics, as Marx pointed out "the political
follows the economic". Dirty politics do not represent a development separate
from our system of economic development, it is a way of maintaining the
ideological dominance of capitalism broadly and neo-liberalism specifically. We
can see examples of this throughout the neo-liberal political-economy that now
pervades. Examples include misinformation campaigns and defamation attacks by
petrochemical companies against global warming advocates, Clothing corporations
over the conditions of workers in the global south and defense of executive
bonuses within the financial sector after the financial crisis they
perpetrated, not one went to jail.

To this end dirty politics does not represent a
political strategy for retaining office but the spread of capitalist
neo-liberal ideology within the political parties which alienated large
sections of the party membership, allowing the growth of corporate interest and
control to every party aspect including parliamentary strategy. Dirty politics
then becomes about maintaining the corporate control of parties.
Fighting dirty politics then must not just be a
political endeavour, it must transform the economic conditions which lead to
the rise and maintenance of dirty politics. Fought not just with the vote but
with the struggle for the minimum wage, secure hours and democratic control. Corporate
economic power can only represent a temporary victory unless it consolidates
its power to once again dominate political power. To fight this dependency and
free ourselves from the stinking corpse of politics we must become
'gravediggers' not just of capitals influence over politics but of the economy
as well.
Dave, SA
Comments