Poetica Pavonis
Poetica Pavonis
This is the second entry in my blog-through of Malatesta's "Anarchy." Read part 1 here!
I would say it's long-awaited, but, frankly, was anybody waiting for this?
Today I'll be going through the second chapter. It's a short one, so this shouldn't take too long. Let's begin.
In Chapter 2, Malatesta goes into a bit more detail about what he means by "government" and why it should be abolished. He says that most people view governments, including their own, as abstract embodiments of power, of ideals, a representation of the interests of the people. Through an anarchist lens, however, government is seen for what it is: an assembly of people wielding power over the greater parts of the population. The ability to wield that power to influence the population is what Malatesta identifies as the root of authority.
Moving on, we are asked the all-important question- Why? Why have government? What is the justification for giving up one's authority over oneself, allowing others this power? Even in the (unrealistic) event that we were to elect a government composed solely of those most qualified to govern, those incorruptible souls with only the common good at heart, the inherent mechanisms of government are a hindrance to its nominal goals. Consider, for example, modern political campaigns. How much more time is spent performing politics, holding rallies and dallying at fundraising dinners, than actually enacting policy? Even in the political "off-season," our leaders are more concerned with preparing for the next election than the next generation. And when they deign to occupy their hard-won seats of power, they are inevitably called on to decide matters for which they are wholly unqualified; how is our geriatric Congress expected to legislate technology which they cannot understand?
And furthermore, how will these leaders be chosen? Anyone engaging seriously with the topic can see the issues in American democracy: the electoral college, active voter suppression, a broken two-party system, et cetera. So, parliamentary government? A glance at a number of European shows these systems are hardly any more durable. For every problem solved, a different one is found. Democracy is obviously flawed, and yet it still outclasses any historical way of choosing our leaders (conquest, inheritance, religion) for representation. We cannot, it seems, find a fair way to choose leaders.
I think most people reading in good faith will agree that most of this is fairly uncontroversial. The problems with government are not hard to find, and people have been complaining about it since time immemorial. That said, it's still a bit of a leap from here to the abolition of government entire. We've seen Malatesta building the case against government, so hopefully in chapter 3 we'll see him turn towards building one for anarchism. As an aside, I'd like to pay special attention to the last paragraph of this chapter, where Malatesta talks about choosing our leaders.
...Are they elected by universal suffrage? But in that case the only criterion is in numbers, which certainly are proof neither of reason, justice nor ability. Those elected would be those most able to deceive the public; and the minority, which can well be the other half minus one, would be sacrificed. And all this without taking into account that experience has demonstrated the impossibility of devising an electoral machine where the successful candidates are at least the real representatives of the majority.
It's impossible, I think, to read these words in 2026 and not respect the man's foresight. The rights and lives of so many people rest so delicately on a fundamentally broken electoral system. Our president does not represent the majority. Our elected leaders win their positions through spreading misinformation about themselves and their enemies. A 5-to-4 court decision robs millions of the rights we say we hold so dear, and we, the people in name only, have no say. Yet, I think many people mistake this for a unique moment, and mistake the foresight of people like Malatesta for genius.
In the election of 2000, George W. Bush was elected without winning the popular vote. In 1980, Ronald Reagan conspired to delay the freeing of American hostages in Iran as an electoral tactic. Even beyond individual elections, voter suppression is a regular occurence, historically and today. Literacy tests, poll taxes, ID laws, the fact that most people still have to work on election day.
These are individual problems and, to be clear, a great deal of them can (and must!) be solved. But these problems are not unique. They happen because these are the ways in which electoralism is vulnerable. Malatesta wasn't a genius for foreseeing it, he was a man with observational skills who watched these things play out first-hand, over and over again.
The system is as broken as it always has been. The curtain covering up the broken machinery of American government has fallen, and none of the new regime can be bothered to pick it back up. We can see them for what they are quite easily. But the curtain has always been there. They let it fall, but they didn't put it up.