BY BARRY SHEPPARD
SAN FRANCISCO — "If you do this recall, you may create a problem that you won't get over for a long, long time. This spreads instability and uncertainty among [California's] people and people around the country."
The speaker was former US president Bill Clinton, who had come to California to speak against the recall of Democrat Governor at the October 7 poll. "This is way bigger than [Davis]. It's you I'm worry about. I don't want you to become a laughing stock or the beginning of a circus in America where we throw people out for making tough decisions."
Clinton wasn't just speaking on behalf of his fellow Democrat. It should be noted that US President George Bush and the national Republican Party have also been muted on the recall election. The more sober section of the ruling class is concerned that the iron grip of the two-party system over politics in the US is being shaken, if ever so slightly, by the recall campaign, and they fear its example could spread.
The "stability" Clinton fears for is the stability of the two-party system. What are the kinds of "tough decisions" he wants rammed through? Evidently, they are decisions which are unpopular with many ordinary citizens who may want to "throw people out" for making them.
The US two-party system is designed to minimise participation by working people, and keep them feeling powerless. The Democrats and Republicans make unpopular decisions in favour of the capitalist class, but ordinary people are told they have no say. The possibility of recalling the governor exists in California, but not in most states. The recall campaign has sparked more interest among the citizenry, who didn't know this possibility existed. Clinton doesn't want the example to spread.
We are told that if we don't like what the two parties are doing, we have to wait for the next election. But the catch is that in that election, the two capitalist parties control who is nominated. Those to the left of these parties are then faced with trying to decide which of them is worse, and voting for the other.
In this situation, it is very hard for pro-working-class parties to break out of this trap. Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate to replace Davis if he is recalled, proposes an instant runoff system, in which electors could vote for their first-choice candidate, but also vote for their second or third choices. If no candidate gets a majority, those with the lowest vote are thrown out, second or third choices can be considered, and the process be repeated until a candidate has a majority.
Such a preferential system would eliminate the argument that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, by allowing a third party supporter to vote for one of the major parties as a second or third choice. This wouldn't mean a clear-cut break with the two party system, but it would allow the electoral strength of third parties to be registered, which isn't the case at present. It could help third parties build themselves from election to election. Voters who already understand the need to break from the Democrats and Republicans could vote for other parties.
Of course, while such a system would be more democratic, it won't break the hold of capital over the electoral process. Australia, which has this system, is a case in point. The domination of the rich over the mass media, the education system and society's other key institutions guarantees that, unless there is a major political crisis.
But it would have a big impact in the left. Since the mid-1930s, the Communist Party of the USA, the Socialist Party and its spinoffs, and others have made the "lesser evil" argument against any break from the Democratic Party. The union bureaucracy also uses it to cover its subordination to the Democrats. While the CP, the social democrats and the labour bureaucracy really think the Democrats are a positive force, their "lesser evil" arguments would become exposed if third parties to their left ran.
From Green Left Weekly, September 24, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.