Yesterday Australia went through the Australian federal elections.
Depending on where you stand, you could say that was a big deal, that a brand new government will be formed.
My own perspective is much more modest: not much really changed.
But, how can that be? How can a government possibly change, without things changing much?
Simple. Let's just remember the new Prime Minister's name… His name is… huh… just a second… Tony Murdoch? No, sorry. Ah! Tony Abbott:
|Tony Abbott. [A|
The former Prime Minister was called what? Rupert Rudd? No! He was Kevin Rudd:
|Kevin Rudd. [B|
This is what happened: after 6 years, the Australian plutocrats sacked one prime minister and replaced it with another. They evaluated the performance of Kevin Rudd and the ALP and were not happy with it; so, they decided the "conservative, centre-right, libertarian" LNP and Tony Abbott would be given the job.
In short: Rudd and the ALP lost, Abbott and the LNP won.
Other than a few faces, surnames and acronyms, things did not really change for the plutocrats. They feel they must be at the top of the "natural order of society"; and, well, they remain there. Sure, they invested some money in the guise of donations, they forced their journalists write propaganda material; some will recover their investment and then some; others will lose some pocket change. Not a big deal, really.
The individuals directly affected would see things differently. For them, the election result is the biggest deal. Ask Rudd, Abbott and their closest associates. For them it's a matter of making more money, a chance to further network, a welcome addition to their CVs. More importantly, they think they made it to the top and joined the elites: didn't they win/lose? As long as in their heart of hearts they acknowledge their real masters, those who put them there may even play along for a while.
How about people like you and me? Are the elections' results entirely irrelevant?
It depends, largely on the still inconclusive Senate results. If Abbott and his Coalition achieve majority in the Senate, things could could get real bad, as we've seen overseas (this is my personal guess, for what it's worth). Otherwise, it could get less bad. Your guess is as good as mine.
This is what the "great Australian democracy" is all about: you are free to vote in order to elect among representatives of the elites. A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, either an "enlightened" one or a brutal one.
Incidentally, the elections' results did not surprise anybody in Australia. They were eminently predictable. You could see it coming with the unavoidability of a Greek tragedy.
So, dear readers, whenever you hear universal specialists on everything and more saying that human behaviour is infinitely variable and unpredictable, you know that is, strictly speaking, bullshit.
And yet, you also need to acknowledge something: elections' results depend on the actions of individuals. That is, your actions and mine.
So, inevitability does not leave us off the hook. We, together, could have avoided it.
[A] Tony Abbott in 2010. Author: MystifyMe Concert Photography (Troy)
Source: Wikipedia. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
[B] Kevin Rudd. 16/01/2013. Author: Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer
Source: Wikipedia. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
My usage of the files does not in any way suggests their authors endorse me or my use of the works.