First off, I have to say that I don’t disagree with anarchy. In fact, I support anarchy in the strictly political sense and idealism. My problem with it is that I don’t trust people. Especially individuals with power. If every individual had “power”, the world would be much more interesting. But it’s not about the individual having power, the way I see it. I see it as an individual not having power. That the world gets to make decisions on whats best in their communities. I’ve always said that communism would work if there wasn’t a single person running it. Which, in essence, is anarchism. Don’t believe me? Watch this video. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
Welcome back. So the issue today is this article by James Morton. I agree with everything he says. But even the title: “The Liberals and the primary option: Open nominations, open society”, made me think anarchism. As I already said, I support anarchism. Most people, especially in this day and age, do not. They see it as a “rebellious” act that is reflected by teenagers, goths, etc. The idea of anarchism is so far flung from what it really means that people see is as anarchy, or “political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control” (Dictionary). Anarchism isn’t disorder, it is merely a different kind of order, an order of the people. We’ve always known that liberalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc. are all on the left of the political scale. Generally, as mentioned in Morton’s article, the left is frowned upon. They’ve been made into ‘sinners’; ‘crazies’; people that are unable to get anything done, that will ruin the society. But, that’s not really true. Look at Michael Ignatieff. He was liberal. In fact, he was a very great man who was respected and loved by “all” who knew him personally. It’s been said that “you didn’t have to agree with his political views to like him as a man.” (Year-end Panel on Politics, The Current, CBC Radio, Dec 29, 2011) So my problem is the obvious backlash I see from the title alone, let alone the contents of this article, calling this man an anarchist and this idea of the primary system anarchism. Which, in a sense it is, in the way that it gives the people more say. But, they’re giving say to who runs the party. Which is a completely democratic, un-anarchist system. Do not mix up the two, people. Don’t blur those lines and try to read into it. A primary system to elect the party leader is a fantastic idea, and is in fact being considered by the public as a powerful way to vote on all forms of politics, including bills. Personally, I think that if the system can monitor this type of voting process efficiently it is a great idea. If they cannot, it’s not worth it. But this is merely a step towards the left, not a jump or a leap and it would provide more access of the public to having a political say, which everyone complains they don’t have enough of.
Let evolution happen, people. It’s time to let technology serve us in something more important. Embrace it.