Dave Gardner

We live in a political system described by its advocates as liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is contrasted with ‘authoritarian’ regimes which adopt policies that the leaders of liberal democracies do not like, such as the promotion of traditional families, restrictions on the influence of foreign governments masquerading as ‘civil society organisations’  or advocacy of friendship with Russia or China. Hungary is a good example of an ‘authoritarian’ state that ticks these boxes, despite the fact that its government has been properly elected over a considerable period of years.

The time is long overdue when the pretensions of liberal democracies to be liberal and democratic should be critically examined. In reality, states such as the US and the UK are oligarchies operating behind a façade of democratic institutions which filter and manage public opinion, routinely practice censorship and above all manage affairs in their own interests rather than those of the population which elects governments, through a carefully controlled process. This works well in large part because the machinery of oligarchy is artfully concealed so that most of the public believe that they are living in a genuine democracy. This is not the case.

Effective participation in democracy requires resources and time. Both of these cost money. Those with money who wish to wield political influence can buy both resources and time largely without restriction. This to a large extent includes agencies outside the UK which follow their own agendas, not necessarily ones that serve the interests of the British people. Political influence can be obtained through various means: direct donations to political parties, lobbying, strong arm tactics by lawyers, paid for foreign ‘fact finding ‘ visits and ownership or influence over mass media. Increasingly, control over internet sites through pressurising providers is an option for opinion control. Last, but by no means least are the opinion forming institutes popularly known as ‘think tanks’. These are privately funded in many cases by non-disclosed sources, staffed by political ideologues and fully engaged in influencing policy makers through ‘research papers’ and seminars. In many cases they lay the groundwork for policy implementation as was the case with Liz Truss’s growth budget or  legislation for example against ‘terrorist’ organisations. In the latter case, legislation is framed so widely as to delegitimise objective consideration of organisations that legislation has deemed ‘terrorist’. Think tanks, especially those funded by billionaires and big business are an important conduit of influence between political investors and legislation. This process is even more advanced in the US than it is in the UK.  In addition, as Labour Affairs has noted, the political class in Britain is increasingly professionalised and drawn from a narrow social stratum. This stratum itself owes its existence to the spending of oligarchic political investors. Money and a professional political elite combine to restrict the range of acceptable political opinion. 

This can most readily be seen in the major British political parties: Conservative, Labour and Liberal, whose  policies are all liberal, imperialist and serve major capitalist interests. The differences that exist between them are largely cosmetic and revolve around differences in emphasis or the fine tuning of legislation. The differences and their emphasis by the media and the political class are important in maintaining an appearance of real political conflict when in reality the only substantial conflict is over which set of political professionals control the legislature and government. Hence the theatrical nature of political activity in the House of Commons where an appearance of vicious antagonism is rigorously kept up, except on issues that really matter such as subservience to the interests of the United States. 

For liberal oligarchy to work well it is important that those sections of the population which might be inclined to resist it are co-opted into the unspoken consensus on foreign, social and economic policy. This is potentially a very tricky operation but not impossible. For example, in foreign policy anti-racism and in particular anti-semitism can be deployed as a disabling device against those who object to aspects of foreign policy in the Middle East or to very high levels of immigration. ‘Anti-imperialist’ rhetoric can be deployed against independent-minded states like Russia and China. ‘Decolonising Russia’ is a favoured theme meaning in reality the dismemberment of that country and its exploitation by western corporations. Another very potent device is the deployment of ‘identity politics’ or the emphasis of potentially antagonistic differences between sections of the working population to distract them from the pursuit of interests that they have in common. This ploy has been very effective in neutering dissidence, particularly as so many who regard themselves as on the left of politics are prone to seeing ‘oppression’ around every corner even where it does not exist. Identity politics is also a potent way of mobilising opinion in an imperialist agenda of attacking the way of life of societies that resist western influence. In a particularly clever ‘boomerang’ effect, the propensity of the left to indulge in identity politics can then be used against left wing politics more generally in a phony ‘battle of ideas’ against wokeism and similar evils. ‘Culture wars’ are another battlefield in the phony wars promoted by liberal oligarchy to make it look like democracy.

The organisations and individuals who fund and control political activity do not have the public interest at heart. They are self-interested and operate in order to protect and promote their financial interests directly, to set the legal framework for the unhindered operation of their businesses and very often to promote the interests of foreign states. This is particularly apparent in the UK with the decline in public services apparent now to most of the public. It is difficult to access a doctor or dentist, public transport, particularly bus services, have deteriorated, the school curriculum has become narrowly focused on numeracy and literacy to the exclusion of practical subjects and housing is of poor quality and often unavailable and sometimes dangerous as the Grenfell tragedy showed all to clearly Since the oligarchs to a large extent control sources of information and opinion together with the main political parties  they can also maintain the outward appearance of democracy. Media organisations still maintain a degree of trust, although a diminishing one, on the mass of the population, so ‘liberal oligarchy’ is an effective form of government in countries such as the UK. If necessary the liberal element can be restricted through campaigns against ‘hate’ or terrorism, both real and imagined. 

Liberal oligarchy could be significantly weakened through legislative measures such as laws requiring the making public knowledge the degree of funding for think tanks, civil society organisations, lobbying groups and political parties from hidden sources of wealth. In addition restrictions can be developed on the amount of funding individuals and corporate bodies can provide under the cover of charitable status or alternatively the enforcement of legislation governing the behaviour of charities can be tightened up. It is also desirable to break up the oligopolic structure of mainstream media through tougher legislation concerning ownership. Essentially though these are mitigating measures. The first task is to make the majority of people aware that they live in a liberal oligarchy rather than a liberal democracy and aware of how it operates. Then the real ‘battle of ideas’ can begin.

The recent rise and success of the ‘Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance’ in Germany’ regional elections gives some indication of the potential of a political fight back against liberal oligarchy. A party of the left that promotes economic justice and worker influence, resists identity politics and advocates an independent foreign policy could have wide appeal despite the distortions and lies from mainstream politicians and media that accompany its rise. In the UK we have the Workers Party of Britain who could do a similar job, but in less favourable circumstances. It is to be hoped that the Workers Party can in due course have the same appeal as the new left wing party in Germany.