Do Elections Mean Anything?

I’ve lived and worked in different parts of Europe, there are broadly speaking three archetypes of politician in Europe. In Slavic Europe, the voters understand that the politician is largely there to enrich himself and the ideological margins between the parties are pretty slim. It’s more about who gets their turn at the trough and voting to stop the people you dislike most - Polish politics used to have an expression “Teraz Kurwa My!” which can be translated as “Not it’s our fucking turn” and that underlines much of the mentality. Expecting change between one set and the next is perhaps optimistic, which is why being pro- or anti- EU has been such an issue. It’s also worth remembering that the “based” politicians of Eastern Europe tend to be either minor or people who are only good at soundbites.

In the Latin countries of Europe a different archetype emerges. It tends to focus on the word “but” as in “he’s corrupt but he gets things done”. Leaders like Chirac, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and the like spring to mind. It’s amazing that leaders from such differing sectors of the political spectrum have such similar habits. It’s also worth considering that these countries have elected communists, dictators, neo-fascists, global banking stooges and crooks in living memory and the overall arc of their country’s politics has changed little. My personal belief is that rather than having a cordon sanitaire around a right wing or nationalist party (as in AfD in Germany or RN in France) the way that a state could neuter any outsider politics is simply to let them run the country. Novel policy and rhetoric would rapidly be replaced by boring business as usual.

The more Germanic nations of Europe seem to have a higher moral expectation of their politicians. This doesn’t translate into those elected actually being any more moral or effective, more the way they portray themselves. There’s a greater reliance on being goodthinkful and political correctness but at the end of the day, the parliament is still made up of people who have the same background, education and views. You get the impression they are randomly sorted into red, blue, or yellow coloured teams at 18 and remain their for life. Ideals and theories take a back seat to managerialism and playing the political game - a game designed to ensure that politics continues as normal regardless of elections.

Many nations have demonstrated exactly how well they can run without governments. Spain managed this for 316 days, Belgium managed close to 600 and neither was really any the worse for it. The modern state is run by its un-reformable and immovable permanent government - the civil service. Going against this body, as when the British government tried to enact Brexit, is largely a fool’s errand. The concept of the Deep State originally hails from the former Soviet bloc, where Communism collapsed at the start of the 1990s yet miraculously the same people were still running much of the state apparatus a few years later - and in many cases still are.

This last point touches on the managerialist and technocratic nature of modern governments. They seem more interested in the minutiae of managing national decline, and endless tinkering with minor laws (e.g. Keir Starmer trying to ban drag hunting) rather than tackling anything which is actually difficult or beneficial. We seem stuck in a loop where all politicians are cut from the same cloth - globalist, left wing on social issues, centre right and in awe of billionaires when it comes to economics.

It might just be that voting isn’t the answer.