Here is a very good short segment by the talented Naomi Klein on Democracy Now!. Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, is in essence an extended analysis of the ways in which narrow, usually plutocratic powers take advantage of emergencies to further the economic interests of the very rich at the expense, most commonly, of the poorest members of a society. While it's a bit heavy on metaphor for my taste, and the connections Klein draws are at times tenuous, the book more than repays a good read.
This segment is about both Walker's awful machinations in Wisconsin and similar measures introduced in around 17 other state legislatures. It's pretty nasty stuff. One provision of a Michigan law nearing passage draws particular attention and is the source of DN's blurbed comment.
The Michigan bill apparently contains a provision by which the governor, through an appointed official, would have the power to dissolve whole municipal governments and hand their functions over to corporate entities or individuals. A friend on FB took exception to Klein's calling this an assault on democracy, since, were the bill to pass, it would be at least democratic in the procedural sense. He preferred calling it "bad policy." Of course, I disagree that enactment of legislation by a simple majority is either a necessary or a sufficient condition to earn a bill the "democratic" appellation. Though they are often confused, majoritarianism is often anti-democratic. I'm also not convinced that anti-democratic policies are inevitably bad policies, or even that this particular anti-democratic policy is necessarily bad. The triggering event which would set this particular provision in motion is "economic crisis." This strikes me as too vague to be useful, but I'd have to spend more time with the bill than I'm willing to commit to assess it. My guess--and it is just that--is that the vagueness is intentional, which would simply lend support to Klein's analysis. But it's something worth investigating, in any event.
The context: Klein remarks that the bill
says that in the case of an economic crisis, that the governor has the authority to authorize the emergency manager—this is somebody who would be appointed—to reject, modify or terminate the terms of an existing contract or collective bargaining agreement, authorize the emergency manager for a municipal government—OK, so we’re not—we’re talking about towns, municipalities across the state—to disincorporate. So, an appointed official with the ability to dissolve an elected body, when they want to...."
[Continuing directly] "A municipal government. And it says specifically, "or dissolve the municipal government." So we’ve seen this happening with school boards, saying, "OK, this is a failing school board. We’re taking over. We’re dissolving it. We’re canceling the contracts." You know, what this reminds me of is New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, when the teachers were fired en masse and then it became a laboratory for charter schools. You know, people in New Orleans—and you know this, Amy—warned us. They said, "What’s happening to us is going to happen to you." And I included in the book a quote saying, "Every city has their Lower Ninth Ward." And what we’re seeing with the pretext of the flood is going to be used with the pretext of an economic crisis. And this is precisely what’s happening. So it starts with the school boards, and then it’s whole towns, whole cities, that could be subject to just being dissolved because there’s an economic crisis breaking collective bargaining agreements. It also specifies that—this bill specifies that an emergency manager can be an individual or a firm. Or a firm. So, the person who would be put in charge of this so-called failing town or municipality could actually be a corporation."
No comments:
Post a Comment