Representation; the word itself conjures up images of men in powdered wigs gathered together, stamping out constitutions and forging mighty democracies. The concept of representation is the very bedrock, the very embodiment of any democracy worthy of the name, or so it is said. But representation today has become a byword, something to not be taken seriously, almost a joke. Surely, the current political climate has not helped make the case for solid representation of the people with great angst coming from these same people directed towards the democratic systems that seem to fail them over and over again. But we in the here and now can learn from history in this situation. Not that we can repeat history but we can take from it. The historical moment in time we can learn some lessons from is the Paris Commune.
The Paris Commune of March to May, 1871, was in effect a governing body made up of the people of Paris; the workers of the city. This experiment of workers self management was established after the Parisian government abandoned the city as it was besieged by the invading Prussians. As the government was traveling to Versailles for transplant, the workers took advantage of the opportunity that was made available and rose to immediate action, thus the commune was born. Eventually and sadly, this great time of history was eradicated by the French government through barbarian acts of bloodshed. Despite its disappearance, this commune of the mid seventeenth century left a radical example that is far ahead of our modern time of superior technology and culture.
Now I will point out and discuss a few of these radical examples. I warn you; these seemingly simple yet incredibly revolutionary ideals might be too much for the person accustomed to the way things are done in an Americanized political system.
We will begin with the intricacies of such a system. The democratic system consists of several levels of tiers, with the highest office being the executive office of president or prime minister. Below the executive office one will find the judicial level which sole purpose is enforce the good law of the land. The judicial level has judges, who in theory are unbiased in their upholding of the law and also included in this level are other officials attached to the office of law. Then there are parliaments and congresses, the creation of laws and statutes are the tasks for which these bodies are intended for. Generally speaking, you then have below this tier what we would call, at least in the United States, the federal level of government, the state or regional government body. These state apparatuses are in a sense, duplicate or replicas of the federal government on a smaller scale. Then this mode of government continues along the line to the community level where you have councils and council men. This is a very general outline of a much more complex system of politics, bylaws, machinations, administrations and bureaucracies. The majority of officials who make up such a system are called representatives. These representatives, from the lowest councilman to the highest office of president are placed in their respective positions through elections, which occur after a span of several years depending on the system.
The problem with this kind of representation is that the elected representative, who, again in theory, is supposed to be an advocate and arbiter of the people, the champion of their needs and wants, turns out to be the exact opposite. The political representative in essence is a servant while the people are this servant’s master; meaning that the representative’s sole reason for existence is to work on behalf of the master, to please the master at all costs. If the servant fails to do his job adequately he will experience serious repercussions. The modern representatives are not true representatives or servants; they do not serve, they lead and the interests of the people whose vote was used for their office are not their interests. The representatives engage in a game in which favors are thrown back and forth between the elected official and those special interests in which both benefit. The one who loses in this game of high stakes are the very people the official has sworn to serve, who at best receive crumbs off the servant’s table. Corporations, lobbyists, industries and the highest bidders are the ones the representatives of the people have sworn to serve, albeit in indiscreet ways. Political representatives, these servants, make certain to see their needs, their personal agendas, are fulfilled first. This is where earmarks and pork barrels come into play. As pure as their intentions might be, no political official, from the most important office to the most insignificant, is immune and it would be naïve to think otherwise. But what is the flaw, what is the malfunction in a system of representatives that is supposed to work, a system in which some proponents say work despite the discontent of many who live under these systems?
A major issue is that the average representative is not from the people. The average politician, who comprises a large majority of these systems, is usually groomed for the arena of politics; they are from lives of privilege or from families which reside on the upper crust of society, far, very far from the common family of society.
Is it not foolish to think that a politician not from the people, disconnected from the people and their experiences, with interests separate from the people, can wholeheartedly represent the people?
How many democratically elected representatives are wealthy; how many live in luxurious houses in relative comfort and ease while the common working man resides in cramped housing in overpopulated neighborhoods?
Yet, this democracy continues on unchallenged, with the unwavering support of people who decide to not think deeply on these matters. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
Returning to the subject of the flaw, when a representative lives beyond the means of livelihood of the people they are chosen to represent, one cannot have the expectation that these same people will be their immediate priority. With the common allowance of perks, extra benefits and royalties elected political representatives receive , again, the people do not share in this bounty, the gap between official and constituent widen more and more and eventually become chasms. Electoral promises never materialize, yet the lies keep pace and the working man and woman continue to believe in hope that maybe this time it will be different. Some things are beyond comprehension.
This is where the Paris Commune becomes relevant. First, the representative elected by the commune was truly a representative in every sense of the word. They came directly from the body of working class Parisians. They were from the people and of the people unlike many of today’s political representatives with their condescending false empathy. A representative of the commune’s caliber understands the people, their experiences, their struggles, their needs, their perspectives and their minds since this representative is one the people. Because of this qualification, a once voiceless people can now have voice.
Also of equal importance, a representative in the commune did not receive pay above the average rate of his fellow workers. Today, this radical ideal is not in existence as many politicians and higher up representatives, apart from perks and generous benefit packages, is financially worth or receives in salary much more then the average working class family. The commune, in its criteria for its representatives, corrected the grievous mistakes that the democratic system is still guilty of committing. A representative that is fully of the people; a representative that receives no special benefit, no preferential treatment and higher pay than his peers is a representative that will have the interests of the people first and foremost without the temptations that perks bring. This elected official will have no incentive in duty apart from meeting the needs of the people. What an amazing concept for us, is it not? Equally amazing is the job security of the representative of the Paris commune – if the public trust is broken or responsibilities are not executed competently the representative would be liable for recall at a moment’s notice. This was to ensure job completion and accountability. In the United States alone, how many professional politicians would be out of a job if Paris Commune type regulations were in effect today? Rather, the question should be how many professional politicians, without the security of guaranteed terms and with the prospect of facing real accountability from the people would actually keep to their job description and serve the public good first?
Some words concerning the aforementioned paragraph. One is led to believe that term limits is a way of dismissing a representative through the usage of the voting booth. This is indeed a fallacy as many a bad politician, both republican and democrat, has been re-elected by influence, connections, capital and preying on the ignorance of the voting public. A recent example is former President of the U.S, George W. Bush. Despite administration corruption, lies, scandal, an unpopular war in the Middle East and approval ratings constantly sinking, Mr. Bush served two full terms (8 years) without even the threat of impeachment from congress. Another recent example is Michael Bloomberg, currently mayor of New York City. Some unpopular actions of his are the West Side Stadium, his pet project for the sports team the N.Y Jets, which ultimately failed, his idea to charge already strugglers workers a fee to ride into sections of Manhattan during certain hours, his insistence that social services do more with less funding due to immense budget cuts and his virtual silence in the face of the private owned MTA’s constant increasing of fare for public transportation to name a few. Mayor Bloomberg sought to extend his tenure as mayor by seeking a third term, which by the way was approved by the city council without public input or consideration. With an endless well of capital at his disposal as a multi billionaire which cannot be matched by any prospective mayoral candidate, New Yorkers will most likely see Michael Bloomberg as mayor for a third term. When politicians manipulate term limits, buy elections with massive capital and influence the outcome of elections despite poor performance this goes far in proving the fallacy correct. Paris Commune, we need you back!
