"Números oficiais da Comissão Eleitoral Federal (FEC, na sigla original), actualizados até 30 de Setembro, indicam que os candidatos ao Congresso recolheram 1180 milhões de dólares, um
acréscimo de 15 por cento face ao orçamento disponível na última votação de 2004. " [...] "Nas eleições de 2004, nenhum dos candidatos que fez uma campanha inferior a um milhão de dólares conseguiu ser eleito. Ainda segundo o Center for Responsive Politics,
o custo médio de uma campanha vitoriosa para o Senado foi, nesse ano, de sete milhões de dólares."
Público, 2 Nov. 06
Um tipo de democracia onde, na prática, só consegue ser eleito quem disponha, no mínimo, de 1 milhão de dólares não é uma democracia, é uma plutocracia ou uma oligarquia. Daí que nos Estados Unidos as eleições não signifiquem nada para a gente comum; enquanto que para o verdadeiro poder (o económico) são um mero pro forma. A verdadeira eleição faz-se antes do escrutínio popular, quando o capital selecciona, através do financiamento dos partidos e das campanhas, quais os candidatos que se apresentarão a concurso . E obviamente, nenhuma empresa vai financiar candidatos que não sejam
corporation friendly. Para a grande massa dos eleitores a única escolha possível é entre o mesmo e o mesmo, ou quando muito, nos algo mais democráticos sistemas políticos europeus, entre o mau e o pior. Fácil é perceber que, num regime que só formalmente é democrático e pluripartidário (mas que de facto é plutocarático e unipartidário), todo o processo legislativo e governativo não passa de um jogo viciado e a democracia se torna uma farsa. Quando ao eleitorado, resta somente escolher entre o milionário A e o milionário B, não admira que 60% dos americanos não se dê ao trabalho de participar no pagode. E quem os poderá censurar?
A este respeito, leia-se o artigo de Stein Ringen no
TLS desta semana, a propósito de
On Political Equality de Robert Dahl
. Alguns excertos:
"parties and campaigns become dependent on large donations from rich individuals or institutions. This disqualifies anyone from entering politics who is unable to obtain the blessing of economic power. Elected politicans answer more to money and less to voters. [...] In countries like USA and UK, it is not too extreme to say that this is already making nonsense of the idea of fair democratic competition."
"
Time and size dictate that democracy's commitmente to being representative in practice limits the role of most citizens to that of occasionally casting a vote. In big political systems, there is a vast space between the little citizens and the big decision-makers. If this space is empty we have what political scientists have called "the distant democracy", in wich decision-making is removed from effective citizenship control."[...] "Democracy can coexist with many forms of economic and social inequality, but it cannot coexist with the combination of excessive wealth in the hands of a tiny minority and the freedom for that minority to use its economic power politically. If minority money decides who can run for office, and voters only decide who gets in among those anointed, there is little left to electoral democracy."
SOLUÇÕES PROPOSTAS POR DAHL
"
On political funding, some limitations on private donations to parties and campaigns will not root out the erosive power of money in democratic politics. It is too late. For a long time, the price of, for example, Presidential campaigns in the US has roughly doubled for every election, and has long since become obscene and deeply undemocratic. In Britain, the government has resorted effectively to selling peerages to bring in the money. It is time to put a full stop to all private donations to political parties and campaigns – from individuals, from businesses, from unions, even from candidates’ own pockets – and
make political parties economically dependent on members. Democracy does not need mega-expensive politics. It would improve democracy if political budgets were cut, and members given power in parties. There are no compelling reasons why the rich should be allowed to use their wealth to destroy the protection ordinary people have in the form of equality voting.
On social reform, democracy should obviously
protect citizens against poverty, but again this is not enough. Measures to protect the poor do nothing to stop the concentration of economic power. When inequality becomes a democratic problem, we must also call for
tax reform and economic democracy.
One reason the rich are growing richer is that they do not pay their fair share of the tax burden. In Britain, income from wealth is taxed leniently, and most taxation is on work and consumption. In the US, the current administration has handed out vast tax benefits to the super-rich. Government is increasingly paid for by the same middle class that is increasingly deprived of influence on public policy. [...]
One of the traditional qualities of American democracy has been in “
nearness”. The space between people and power has been filled by a fabric of associations and voluntarism. This has been a source of life quality and social vitality and has at the same time represented the people’s buffer against the coercive tendencies in big government and big business.
In a culture in which togetherness was the norm, increasingly, in Robert Putnam’s phrase, people are “bowling alone”. In an optimistic scenario, Dahl thinks that the
associational culture could be revitalized. He believes that might happen because once people reach a reasonable level of affluence, further additional affluence does not add noticeably to happiness and quality of life. We may then
hope that people turn away from the materialistic rat race and devote more time and energy to social cooperation.
This is not a vain hope. In
Scandinavia, for example, major social trends in the last generation have included a surprising triple combination:
more people participating in work, in particular more women; shorter working hours and more leisure time for workers on average, and increasing participation in social and cultural life.
In America, a work culture of long hours is pulling people away from social and cultural participation.
The reason that combination has been possible in Scandinavia is that people can afford to work less. Economic growth is distributed broadly enough for most people to benefit sufficiently for them not to have to run harder to stay where they are. In America [...] middle-class workers have seen no or very little improvement in real hourly earnings. Therefore, while the rich grow richer by the day, and define social expectations, workers must work more, in order to have a share in the new prosperity they see around them. The results are two-earner families, longer working days, less free time and less participation in social life. It is not that Americans are workaholics: no more there than anywhere else do people want to work more and live less. It is economic conditions that tie them to the treadmill. Dahl is probably right that there is not much happiness at the end of this race; but it is not happiness people are running after, it is fairness. To liberate working women and men from futility, deep economic reforms are needed to spread more evenly the benefits of economic growth: in wages, in working life and worker protection, in taxation. It is not easy to see where such reforms should come from in the American system, or in Britain, but the case needs to be made."
Bom, leiam o resto
aqui, se quiserem.
