- 17 Nov 2016 14:34
#14738737
Leaving aside the fact that in, for example, the British system it is Parliament rather than the citizens who have sovereignty, I would accept this as a fair description of bourgeois democracy. The problem with such a 'democratic' system, of course, is that it is a fiction. It only becomes possible by a sleight of hand, by pretending that everyone is a bourgeois. In reality, of course, most people are not bourgeois property-owners, and have to sell their own labour power in the marketplace. The reality - by which I mean the actual economic and social relations between these citizens within the framework of the prevailing mode of economic production - contradicts this theoretical equality. Back in the 19th century, there was no pretence about this - there was a property qualification for voting, and the working class were not allowed to vote. The political instability which resulted led to a political crisis of legitimacy by the early 20th century, which was solved - if only temporarily - by extending the franchise to all 'responsible' adults (meaning not children, not the insane, not criminals and not aristocrats. Lol.). But as I said, this was a political sleight of hand, made possible by just assuming that everyone is a bourgeois property owner. It resolved the crisis of legitimacy, but at the cost of opening a rift between the political system and objective social and material reality.
The state has the monopoly to force his citizens to comply with his laws. The sovereign rules the state. Nowadays the sovereign is the people (the citizens), who delegate their authority to the democratic parliament. The state is actually a reciprocal circle, since all citizens are equal for the law. This construction is commonly symbolized by the social contract, that is signed by all citizens. Thus citizenship is a free choice and devoid of any hierarchy. It looks like a sand-glass, where the citizens are both the top (sovereign) and the bottom (subjects by free choice). That is to say, it is a system with feed-back.
Leaving aside the fact that in, for example, the British system it is Parliament rather than the citizens who have sovereignty, I would accept this as a fair description of bourgeois democracy. The problem with such a 'democratic' system, of course, is that it is a fiction. It only becomes possible by a sleight of hand, by pretending that everyone is a bourgeois. In reality, of course, most people are not bourgeois property-owners, and have to sell their own labour power in the marketplace. The reality - by which I mean the actual economic and social relations between these citizens within the framework of the prevailing mode of economic production - contradicts this theoretical equality. Back in the 19th century, there was no pretence about this - there was a property qualification for voting, and the working class were not allowed to vote. The political instability which resulted led to a political crisis of legitimacy by the early 20th century, which was solved - if only temporarily - by extending the franchise to all 'responsible' adults (meaning not children, not the insane, not criminals and not aristocrats. Lol.). But as I said, this was a political sleight of hand, made possible by just assuming that everyone is a bourgeois property owner. It resolved the crisis of legitimacy, but at the cost of opening a rift between the political system and objective social and material reality.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)