|
April 7, 2011
Unless something dramatic happens, voter turnout in this federal election will
be as low as the last one. While the causes of voter indifference may be
uncertain, the motivations that drive it are clear. Who benefits from low voter
turnout and apathy?
First, low turnout is a political strategy. Parties purposely discourage voters
through attack ads. It's a calculated risk to demoralize opposition supporters
by bashing their leaders. The collateral damage of such negativity is a
reduction in total turnout.
Results from the last election demonstrate that attack ads work. In 2008,
800,000 fewer Liberals voted. Conservative ads pictured Liberal leader Stephane
Dion in a Gallic shrug with the caption "Not a leader, not worth the risk."
Negative ads are also risky because they can provoke sympathy for the target.
Conservatives pulled another attack ad against Dion that showed a Puffin pooping
on Dion's shoulder. Prime Minister Harper explained "It has been removed. It was
tasteless and inappropriate." Translation: "The ad could have back-lashed."
Another risk is that your own supporters will be discouraged from voting.
Canadians find attack ads discouraging. Conservative voters also stayed home on
election day but not to the extent that Liberal voters did.
So, who else benefits from low voter turnout? This requires a look at the bigger
picture. Voter participation has been on the decline since the 1980s.
The three decades since have been characterized by a change in attitude towards
government. It's not by accident but promoted by politicians themselves.
Strangely enough, they endorsed a decline in the very governments they managed.
Notable proponents of small government were U.S. President Reagan and U.K. Prime
Minister Thatcher.
This meant small government for the poor and middle classes. The message from
politicians was that most Canadians should expect less from government: less
wage protection, less support for the destitute and mentally ill, and opposition
to organized labour.
However this didn't mean small government for everyone. While ordinary citizens
should expect less, the rich and powerful could count on more. Corporations are
now protected as citizens once were. Barriers to industry, like worker wages and
environmental protection, have been removed. Tax cuts have been substantial.
|
Politicians have been able to sell the illusion of small government through
magical thinking. The gospel of the trickle-down theory states that
governments don't create jobs or wealth, only corporations and the deserving
rich do. In their beneficence, wealth trickles down to the great unwashed
and undeserving poor
What politicians mean by promoting small government is less services for
average citizens; less road maintenance, bigger class sizes and crumbling
schools, and poorer health care. Governments have purposely engineered the
decline of service to average citizens while increasing them for oil
companies, Big Pharma, and the killing industry (euphemistically called
defense).
No wonder voters are discouraged from participation: governments no longer
serve them and voting is a waste of time. The rich and powerful like it that
way.
The last three decades of corporate rule are characterized by greater
inequity of wealth distribution. From 1980 to 2005, income for the richest
one-fifth Canadians increased by sixteen per cent while the poorest fell by
twenty-one per cent according to statistics from the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives.
Poorer health is a consequence of less income and indicators are on the
decline. Last year, Canada dropped from sixth place to 24th in infant
mortality, just above Poland and Hungary according to the Organization for
Economic Development. Children's health dropped to ninth and family
wellbeing (housing, poverty) to 17th.
The rich and powerful are not apathetic when it comes to politics. They vote
with their money to buy governments that serve them.
The disparity of wealth matches the level of the last depression of the
1930s. Then, as now, governments served an elite few. It took a
near-revolution of the desperate and dirt-poor masses to reform government
so that it served the majority. Voters threw out the old established
institutions in favour of novel governments like Social Credit and the
Co-operative Commonwealth Confederation, precursor of the NDP.
The only difference now is that average citizens have not reached that level
of abject poverty. Awash in debt, fascinated by the baubles of consumerism,
virtual slaves to the banks who own their future earnings, they struggle to
live the middle class dream.
But just try to stop them from voting when they awake from their stupor.
David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at
dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca
|
