On Change and ballots

 “If voting did anything, they’d make it illegal.”

This often repeated and attributed quote has caused a great deal of argument for many years. Its often attributed to Emma Goldman though attempts to find the source haven't succeeded and sometimes the quote is attributted to other thinkers like Mark Twain. But while its not clear that Goldman said those words I doubt she'd disagree with it. 

A common line of criticism especially from people who live in the United States of America is "but they are making it illegal". The USA and many other countries do have restrictions on eliigibility for voting. In the segregationist South Black Americans were barred by poll tax requirements and ridiculous and rigged tests they had to pass before being allowed to cast a ballot. And to this day in many states the act of gerrymandering of electoral districts continues and multiple states have passed increasingly stringent laws on the need for identification and restrictive lists for what counts as identification. 

This was just one of hundreds of such tests used in the US South.

And its not just the United States. The presidential elections in Brazil this year saw Federal police intervene to close polling stations early and turn buses full of voters away on one flimsy pretext or another. So it does seem like voting is increasingly becoming illegal or at least blunted by heavy restrictions.

So, does this mean the qoutation is incorrect? I would think no, and although we don't know if Emma Goldman said this phrase I think she is still a good example of the phrase's meaning. Emma Goldman was a committed Anarchist-Communist and advocate for social revolution. To her, changing things meant systemic change, the kind of change that rebuilds society from the ground up. To date, while elections and referendums have brought about changes they haven't brought about the systemic change that Goldman advocated. 

For example, let's look at some passages from her essay on Woman Suffrage. 

Woman’s demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that “golden opportunity” that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.

...

 As to our own States where women vote, and which are constantly being pointed out as examples of marvels, what has been accomplished there through the ballot that women do not to a large extent enjoy in other States; or that they could not achieve through energetic efforts without the ballot?

Bolding my own.

For Goldman economic and social conditions and power relationships between classes and individuals were the important thing. And for her there were many ways to available to achieving gains along those ends, while expanding the franchise to women didn't automatically lead to any progress as far as she could see in the United States of America. 

But, nevertheless, the right to vote or to be more accurate acess to the vote is being restricted in many parts of the world. So, why? Well I think we can answer this question by looking at who is trying to make it harder for people to vote. In the United States currently much of the hostile legislation and policies enacted by state governments towards voting have been carried out by the Republican party*. In Brazil the Federal police are known to overwhelmingly support former President Bolsonaro and most of the reports of their inttereference were carried out in parts of Brazil were his opponent Lula had a strong lead.

They aren't trying to prevent the coming revolution, these are members of specific political factions targeting the voting blocks of their opponents to suppress their electoral opposition and secure their positions in power. Passing a law that requires identification while voting and at the sametime restricts what forms of ID are acceptable to types that are less common amongst the demographics that vote for other parties helps one party in particular win elections. 

Revolutions and even major reforms are often driven by non elective means. The Voting Rights Act that abolished the restrictions on Black americans from voting in the South was passed in 1965 after the civil rights movement had sucessfully used direct action to desegerate many businesses, services and schools. And the passage of the act did not end the struggles for racial equality and justice in the United States. The African National Congress formed a government in 1994 by being the largest party in the South African parliament, but that was only possible through decades of mass disobediance campaigns, boycotts and armed struggle. Meanwhile the dictator Napoleon III passed male suffrage, the Brazilian dictatorship maintained a congress with political parties that stood for elections. And in Australia its a crime to not vote in elections.

And in much of the democratic world change through ballots alone are usually limited by a political orthodoxy established by two or more large political parties that compete to form a government. Yes, we have the right to vote for any candidate we wish, but that doesn't lead to more radical change. You vote for the incumbent and thus more of the same or you thought for the largest opposition which will implement a few changes along their manifesto plan. Some nations have tried to address this issue by switching electoral systems and changing thresholds for representatives or implementing recall mechanisms but these haven't widened the scope for change much.

So, I suppose if we had to criticise the qoutation it would be that "voting on its own doesn't change anything substantial, which is why politicians who fear growing unpopularity but barriers in place to make it as difficult as possible to do".

* I have on occasion seen allegations of similar behaviour leveled at Democratic party administrations but the overwhelming number of cases involve the Republicans.