A note on power process in authoritarian politics

[solarbird]

I mentioned this elsewhere a few days ago, but I'll remind people about it here too: a key step in the consolidation of power in an authoritarian system (of any form) is the purge of your supporters once you attain a power goal. Make no mistake: once you secure the power, you are specifically purging the people who helped you achieve it. This is by design.

This purge may be committed in the name of corruption, it may be committed in the name of ideology, or there may be some other reason - how you select doesn't even really matter, as long as you target the most potentially independent members of your base, the ones who will object, the ones who will not put loyalty before principle. This is due to the necessity of informing and/or reminding the remainder that they are dependent upon you, not the other way around, and that without your support, they are nothing. It also removes potential future obstacles.

In this sort of culturally-republican-ish environment, and in this case, that means the instant marginalisation of ideas, regardless of merit and/or reality and/or history (c.f. the Democratic Party leadership, Olbermann, et al). In a more openly authoritarian system, it of course means far worse. Fortunately we are not there yet, various GOP rank-and-file desires to the contrary.

It is important to note that I do not suggest here that Senator Obama's actions are a particularly bad or violent example of this phenomenon. This is also not to suggest that there are no differences between the two candidates of the authoritarian establishment; there are, and they are mostly domestic, except for the issue of Supreme Court justices, which could offer the last possibility of resistance. (C.f. the 5-4 vote to retain habeas corpus.) This is also not a call to change your opinions about any token vote you might cast this November, except insofar as the election of an "opposition" party in support of the same things as the "outgoing" party casts these policies more firmly into stone. I instead remind the readers of this stage of power because this is the reality of politics in an authoritarian system; this is simply how that game is played. I suggest that the Obamaniacs take their lessons from this, and be happy that at least they'll live to fight again another day.

I, of course, also suggest that they form a new party, or take over and repurpose an existing national small one; I do not believe the Democratic Party can be salvaged, as I've said many times before. As for the reformers - they're done, certainly, for this act. See that bus, that one on their necks? That's for them. If they realise that quickly, then perhaps they might salvage something.

If you are in that opposition, you'll need to be ready for the next opportunity for turnover rather than the current one, because the Democratic Party plan is now moving into action: to embrace and extend the soft authoritarian system that Chief Executive Bush expanded so dramatically, and which, frankly, I think most Americans have at least been convinced they want. They wish to embrace and extend the lawless Presidency, to preserve the illusion of power in the legislature without the reality, to have control over those absolute powers via the Executive, and, of course, to peddle a use of these powers with different rhetoric and with perhaps a modicum more intelligence as "reform" and "opposition."

The problem, of course, is that it typically takes a significant shock to trigger a significant change in a system without a functional opposition party - by which I mean one which actually opposes - and the current situation was made worse, not better, by such a shock. And I don't think the next one will be far enough off to function as a truly separate event, or to build an actual, functional opposition.

But one, I suppose, can always hope.

Comments

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court just finished rebuking our Executive Branch on Gitmo, that's not something you're going to see in a truly authoritarian system, for example in Pakistan where the Chief Justice found himself dismissed and put under house arrest.

I think the larger problem is that one major branch of government, the legislative branch, is basically unwilling to play their role and instead is just throwing up their hands on the larger important issues. And frankly most people in this country don't really care, so they'll probably get away with it. Which is not ideal, but I still think different from an authoritarian system.

[solarbird]

And I called that out. And I pointed out that on these issues of structure, the only remaining major point of distinction in fact is the Supreme Court appointment(s) coming up.

But the Chief Executive has successfully declared himself above and immune to the law, including above Constitutional law, on dozens of occasions. He has spent moneys in direct and specific violation of law; he has withheld funds ordered spent by Congress (an Article of Impeachment against Nixon, btw); he has repudiated laws he did not like; he has repudiated treaties he did not like. He has most importantly declared, and Congress is now endorsing rather than merely let stand, that orders given by the Chief Executive are de facto always legal, and thereby override law, providing immunity from punishment. The core of authoritarianism is rule by personal decree trumping rule of law; this is how Mr. Bush has ruled, and this is what this Congress has endorsed. With both branches in charge of appointing Court members in those hands, it strikes me that we will be very, very lucky not to see that 5-4 decision reversed in short order - or, if and when (almost certainly, when) the next significant terrorist attack happens, simply ignored.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

But that's not structural. There's a difference between someone having power and not using it and someone not having power. Congress has power, they're not using it right now. The legislature under Pinochet had no power.

At some point there very well could be a showdown, and the fact that the President claims he has such and such power doesn't mean he has that power. That's a huge difference in my opinion.

[solarbird]

But that's not structural. There's a difference between someone having power and not using it and someone not having power. Congress has power, they're not using it right now. The legislature under Pinochet had no power.
It's the current operating structure. No, it's of course not the paper structure, but very few of the major tyrannies of the 20th century had that as the structure on paper. China's constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. The Soviet Union's guaranteed all kinds of political freedoms. Nazi Germany was operating under the legislative framework of the Weimar Republic through 1945! The Reichstag continued to meet! Revoke the Enabling Act - which they could've at any time - and ping! Back to parliamentary democracy! At least, on paper. Hell, the Roman Senate continued to meet throughout most of the duration of the Empire. Sure, sometimes it had horses appointed, but by the gods it continued to meet and debate!

If there is no enforcement of law, no enforcement of these limits and checks, then there is no law. Currently, aside from habeas corpus (which, given the reported secret prison system onboard US Navy ships, I'm not sure we can actually set aside - given Mr. Bush's actions of the past, I think they've simply shifted the location of their activities to new locales harder to find), there is no enforcement. Not even of Congressional subpoenas - Mr. Bush's politicised and co-opted Justice Department simply refuses to enforce them. Accordingly, there is no law. There is culture, there are suggestions, both of which can be and routinely are set aside.

At some point there very well could be a showdown, and the fact that the President claims he has such and such power doesn't mean he has that power.
If there is no showdown, there is no enforcement. That what the showdown is about - enforcing that law. There hasn't been any. And in a system of precedent (and with a long history of recognition of precedent), getting away with something once in a legal framework means you can get away with it again. Also, if you can and do use a power and no one stops you, you have that power. You may not have that power on paper, but that's irrelevant in a lawless structure; it's what you can do that matters, and we've seen what the Chief Executive thinks he can do and has done - at least, some of it. Who knows how much else? We don't, and probably won't, because the investigations are being blocked - in some cases, as now, by Congress itself.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Use it or lose it. I generally have a hopeful view that Congress will eventually turn things around, and unlike solarbird I think the Democrats are spineless rather than wholly complicit in what's happening. But the problem with not using your power is that when you finally do get around to trying to use it, you might find that you don't have it anymore. Congress absolutely needs to start acting like the co-equal branch it is. In my judgment, they're more likely to do that if the next election repudiates the Republican Party. After the Democrats have control of the first two branches of government, the goal becomes supporting better Democrats (and a rare good Republican if I can find one), and holding them accountable. I hope to see most pro-FISA immunity Democrats challenged during the 2010 primary.

But if we target both parties now, voting for a third party or not at all, we not only won't get better Democrats, but we'll be saddled with the authoritarian Republicans that dominate our system now.

[solarbird]

But if we target both parties now, voting for a third party or not at all, we not only won't get better Democrats, but we'll be saddled with the authoritarian Republicans that dominate our system now.
"Vote for us or you'll get even worse" is how, sadly, we got here. It's what the Democrats have been saying since at least, hum, 1988? Given the degenerate point to which the system has fallen, though, I agree with this in terms of the Presidency. But not anywhere further down.

If you're wondering what I'd like to see happen - I realise it won't, of course - is this: I'd like to see the 15 Senators and probably 40-60 Representatives who actually believe in this stuff split off and form a new party. Go head and announce that they'll caucus with the Democrats, sure, that's fine; be coalition partners, of a sort. But be a separate party that doesn't fuck around like the Democrats do on this matter. Until there's an active leadership voice specifically for these things, this won't get fixed.

And I am very much not expecting big changes "when it's safe" next year - after all, why would they, when this "won" them more seats and (semi-)power? They'll keep doing what brought them into office until it doesn't bring them into office anymore.