Blegian Electoral registration office bans several left wing groups from contesting elections

by John Tue Apr 20, 2004 17:41

Reading this and discovering what a mess the Socialist and Green Parties have made of Belgium, I'm just so grateful that Ireland has an FF/PD government.

by Doctor Yamamoto Wed Apr 21, 2004 15:13

So your definition of a socialist party is a party whose name includes the word?
You would then, of course that the German Democratic Republic was, by the same logic, democratic, and its failure and collapse is a definitive and unrefutable demonstration that democracy cannot work?

by Canteen Kevin Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:39

... you may be glad to live under the FF/PD Junta but the rest of us are hardly going to benefit from privatisation, corruption and nepotism now are we?

by perhaps a little cynical... Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:30

"The ruling class think they can stop all anti-establishment parties from gaining influence by preventing them from taking part in the elections. This is going to have the opposite effect, as it is seen by a large layer of the population as an attempt by the main politicians to protect their interests. They would do anything to be able to stay on the European gravy train.

The way in which the traditional parties, in alliance with the judiciary, have cooked up this ‘deus ex machina’ shows their utter contempt for democracy if the latter does not suit their needs. Like characters in ancient Greek dramas, they think they can use divine powers to right all wrongs and secure their monopoly on political power. In Belgium, voting is obligatory but the vote is not free. Failing to go to the polling booth might end with a fine. Failing to organise in a political party approved by the ruling class might result in that party’s ban from standing in elections."

The above sounds remarkably like the BNP's arguments when they are prevented from doing things. Something almost identical was read out in Trinity last year, when a BNP representative was forced to cancel his engaging in debate by threatened protests. A letter from him was read out, and it sounded like the above. The first sentence in particular could describe the behaviour of left-wing groups with regard to appearances by new right figures.

by Doctor Yamamoto Thu Apr 22, 2004 13:10

In both cases, people are invking the right to freedom of speech and expression. So it doesn't really have to surprise anyone if the arguements may be similar.
You still have to decide whether it is right to give people a forum to spread their views, and such a decision must be based on what the consequences would be.
Whereas the ruling class may seek to hinder a potential threat from the left that might point out the true nature of the capitalist system, many people on the left rightly say that the far right would (mis)use this right to incite hatred and violence and therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

by okay, so not really cynical Thu Apr 22, 2004 13:42

"You still have to decide whether it is right to give people a forum to spread their views, and such a decision must be based on what the consequences would be."

It's not necessarily true that such decisions need be based on what imagined consequences would result. With regard to the right, Vlaams Blok in Belgium, the Freedom Party in Austria and the Northern Alliance in Italy have all been elected to office with no collapse in the established system. There may be a rise in racist attacks, but whether the election of far-right figures is a cause or simply another symptom of the same problem is debatable. And in any event, it is not up to us to decide if people should be allowed speak. It's a human right.

"Whereas the ruling class may seek to hinder a potential threat from the left that might point out the true nature of the capitalist system"

The decision to ban a Maoist party is not automatically a decision based on a threat to the ruling class - I don't think there's a single government in Western Europe that's in danger of a real threat from the left - but rather on the ramifications of how they define themselves. A party defining itself as Maoist might face questions about the nature of China's human rights abuses under Mao, in particular his purge of "bandits, spies, bullies, and despots" which killed 700,000 people. Estimates of the number of Chinese killed for dissent during the start of his reign stand at about three million. The reasoning behind banning such a party is similar to the reasoning behind banning an openly fascist party.

I don't intend to argue that it's right to silence a political voice - I happen to disagree quite strongly with the idea of banning such parties and believe it only strengthens their core support. What I want to explain is how an adherence to a particular doctrine - in this case, the doctrine of leftist revolution - can blind one to the realities of political life and the reasons behind the decisions are made.