I noticed that there are 83 candidates on the senate ballot paper in NSW this year. Yes - 83. So, for those who can be bothered to number below the line, here's your handy guide to the positions of those on the ballot paper in NSW.
Group A: Socialist Alliance
A broad electoral church of eight different socialist groups who formed under the one banner in 2001. They’ve become quite popular on university campuses and you can barely attend any left wing protest without them drowning out the crowd with signs. They describe themselves as “anti-capitalist” and for “a democratic society run by and for working people, not the greedy, destructive elite that now rules”.
http://www.socialist-alliance.org/
Group B – Independents: Robert Hodges and Bob Frier
Very little information can be found online about these guys or their policies. They both seem to be involved on the board of the Glenorie RSL club. Make of that what you will.
Group C – Independents: Tony Robinson, Noel Selby
Nick Selby is a truckie who ran as an Independent in the recent State Penrith By-election. He was accused by the liberals as being a Labor supporter, because he supported building a roundabout up the mountains somewhere. Whatever the merits or stupidity of that claim, it was denied by Mr Selby, who stated he has been a “swinging voter”. His Penrith campaign was centered around providing better public services to the area. Given Selby’s profile, it’s a bit baffling he is second in the group. Tony Robinson is also a truck driver and a Penrith local.
Noel Selby profile: http://penrith-press.whereilive.com.au/news/story/independent-noel-selby-steps-forward-for-penrith-by-election/
http://www.penrithstar.com.au/news/local/news/general/noel-selby-independent-nepean-river-and-penrith-valley-sports-stadium/1854196.aspx
Group D – Independents: Darrin Hodges and Nick Folkes:
These two have a campaign website, not that it’s all that pleasant to read. They seem to want to stop all immigration, bash “third world masses”, end the mining tax, and build up the manufacturing industry. They seem to hate socialism, multiculturalism, and globalization. Maybe they should have run for One Nation - oh wait, hang on, they oppose the internet filter.
http://www.darrinhodges.com/
Group E – Building Australia Party
This seems to be a building industry-based party that supports loosening planning and local council regulations to assist the building industry build more homes.
http://www.buildingaustralia.org.au/
Group F – Senator On-Line
A party that promises to raise any policy in the senate put to them by any voter around the country through online submissions. Their first candidate is Wes Bas, a Surry Hills police officer and community activist. Their second candidate is Brianna Roach, a law student from the north shore.
http://senatoronline.org.au/
Group G – Communist Alliance
The reds are out from under the bed. The Communist Alliance incorporates the old Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and a few other disparate communist groups. Geoff Lawler is a trade union official with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union in the Riverina area. Brenda-Anne Kellaway is a teacher and single mum. They are also running a candidate in the lower house seat of Sydney.
http://www.communist-alliance.org.au/
Group H – Independents Nadia Bloom and Bede Ireland
Nothing can be found anywhere about either of these candidates apart from the AEC website. They are apparently retirees.
Group I – Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
These guys are the Australian followers of the wacky conspiracy theorist and former US democratic party congressman, Lyndon LaRouche. If you’re someone who thinks that the US government brought down the twin towers in a controlled explosion, and that we should renationalize the banks so the Jews won’t get hold of them, this party could be for you.
http://www.cecaust.com.au/
Group J - Australian Democrats
They’re barely alive, but still around. Originally a breakaway progressive liberal party, the democrats now claim that they are “returning to their roots”. Apparently this involves a rejection of the Mining Tax for reasons of “states rights”. Ah, ever the small-L liberals.
http://www.democrats.org.au/
Group K - Independents – Meg Sampson, J Hinchcliffe
They at least have a twitter account. They both describe themselves as old – 65 and 75. Meg Sampson says she was an ex-member of the Australian democrats, and there seems to be a record of a Megan Sampson as a previous candidate for the dems in the 1980’s and 1990’s. They even have a twitter account!
http://msmegansampson.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/meg4sensampson
Group L – Independents – Leon Adrian Belgrave, Janos Beregszaszi
Leon Adrian Belgrave appears to have previously run as a candidate for the “Outdoor Recreation Party”, who are a libertarian group now allied to the Liberal Democratic Party. I’m not sure whether these guys are running as ODP candidates or just on their own.
http://www.orp.org.au/
Group M – The Climate Skeptics
This is a party devoted to advancing the cause of Climate Change skepticism – the first such party in the world (so they claim). If you’ve ever uttered the phrase “but it’s all just natural cycles”, or “the science isn’t settled”, maybe these guys are up your alley. .
http://www.landshape.org/news/
Group N – Secular Party of Australia
These guys are a party of humanists and atheists who are committed to advancing policies that strengthen the separation of church and state and advance the cause of reason and strict secularism. They also want to attack the influence of religion in politics. Amongst their policies is a commitment to end state money to religious schools. I’m guessing that approximately 70% of voters will hate them, while the rest stand up and cheer.
http://www.secular.org.au/
Group O – Shooters and Fishers Party
They catch things, then shoot them. Combining guns and fish may sound like a weird concept, but they actually do quite well in the NSW state upper house, where they currently hold the balance of power. These guys are a largely rural-based party that aims to protect the rights of fisherman and gun owners. They describe themselves as strong “family values” social conservative types, which is probably the reason why they are distinct from the more libertarian Outdoor Recreation Party/LDP.
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/
Group P – Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia
Originally formed out of the labor party split in the 1950’s before dying in the mid 1970’s, the DLP have had something of a minor resurgence in recent years, particularly in Victoria where they have state upper house representation. On economic issues they would be mostly centrist with a pro-union slant, and on social issues they are very conservative (against same-sex marriage, stem cells, abortion, etc).
http://www.dlp.org.au/
Group Q - Australian Sex Party
A new party that has attracted attention for it’s name alone. The Australian Sex party rails against censorship and “wowserism”. It supports an R rating for videogames and the abolition of the internet censorship filter. They actually have some detailed policy proposals on sex education, health, preventing sex slavery, immigration, protecting the rights of sex workers, and legal-no fault abortion. And even a bit of religion bashing thrown in for good measure.
http://www.sexparty.org.au/
Group R – Independents – David Barker and S G Zureik
David Barker was the bible-bashing liberal candidate for Chifley, who was disendorsed. Why? Because he posted anti-Muslim messages on his Facebook page and tried to claim that labor wanted to take a Christian Australia in a muslim direction. Not the smartest idea, especially when your main opponent, Ed Husic, is a “non practicing muslim”. He was also a former member of Fred Nile’s Christian Democrats.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/anti-muslim-liberal-candidate-david-barker-to-be-dumped-says-joe-hockey/story-e6frf7jx-1225896596514
Group S – Socialist Equality Party
These guys are the official followers of Leon Trotsky and the Fourth International. Yes, real live trots.
http://www.sep.org.au/website/
Group T – Sustainable Population Party
These guys are listed as Independents on the ballot because they didn’t get their ballot in on time. The Sustainable Population Party want to limit Australia’s population growth to a maximum of 26 million by 2050. They stress they aren’t racist and the reasons are purely environmental, and they want to maintain out current refugee intake of 13,000 a year. Their website proudly boasts the endorsement of Dick Smith. An immigration party endorsed by Dick Smith – you’d think they’d be popular enough to get their name on the ballot. Maybe their missing ingredient was blatant racism.
http://www.populationparty.com/Home/About-Us
Group U – Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
This group wants to change Australia’s Family Law and Child Support policies so that there is more room for equal custodianship of children when in divorce. They also have other policy proposals.
http://www.ncpp.xisle.info/
Group V – Family First
A conservative Christian political party backed by Pentacostal Churches like Hillsong. They are one of the fastest growing minor parties in Australia, although they are likely to be left with no federal senate representation now that Steve Fielding’s senate term has expired.
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/
Group W – Australian Labor Party
Australia’s oldest political party, started by the Union movement, Labor is a social democratic party committed to collective bargaining, a multilateral approach to foreign policy, utilizing the role of government to provide services, and progressive social policy. They have been in government since 2007.
http://www.alp.org.au/
Group X – Reconcile Australia Party
Listed as Independents on the ballot, this is a party that advocates policies around Aboriginal reconciliation and living standards.
http://www.reconcileaustraliaparty.org/
Group Y – The Carers Alliance
This party runs on a platform of advancing the rights and living standards of the disabled and their carers. Amongst their proposals is a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
http://www.carers.org.au/
Group Z – Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Why vote for family first when you could vote for The Original Bible Bashers™? Formed out of Fred Nile’s Call to Australia party, this party “Promotes Christian values in Parliament and evaluates all legislation on Biblical principles.” This is code for bashing gays, arguing against abortion, and promoting ultra-conservative Christian values.
http://www.cdp.org.au/
Group AA – Liberal Party of Australia/National Party of Australia
The Liberal Party are Australia’s major Liberal Conservative party. Formed by Robert Menzies in 1944, they promote policies that support free enterprise, individual liberty, and conservative values. The National Party of Australia (formerly the Country Party) are a rural-based conservative party that advocates policies that benefit rural and regional Australia. The Liberal and National Parties govern in coalition, and have been in opposition since 2007. They are running a joint ticket in NSW, with the first two candidates being liberals and the third candidate a national.
http://www.liberal.org.au/
http://www.nationals.org.au/
Group AB – The Republican Democrats
Listed as independents on the ballot, this party is a centrist/progressive liberal party along similar lines as the British Liberal Democrats. I guess you could call them “small L Liberals”, but with a firm progressive streak. In QLD they are running a noted anti-corruption campaigner for the Senate. Their two NSW candidates are local activists from the central coast. They do have an impressively long list of detailed policies and a professional looking website. They’re obviously trying to start something.
http://republicandemocrats.org.au/
Group AC – One Nation
Australia’s favourite hillbilly party. Founded by Pauline Hanson in 1997, One Nation is the main Australian political party advocating for racism, nationalism, xenophobia, lower immigration and aboriginal-bashing.
http://www.onenation.com.au/
Group AD – The Greens
Australia’s largest Third party by some distance, the Greens are a party that was founded primarily to advocate policies related to environmentalism. Now they are the vanguard for left-wing politics, with a long list of policy proposals for all areas of policy. To the left of Labor, the greens seek to make big inroads in an election where both major parties have abandoned action on climate change. They stand a real chance of holding the balance of power in the senate and winning their first lower house seat.
http://www.greens.org.au/
Group AE – Independents – Cheryl Kernot, Simon Cant
Cheryl Kernot is a former leader of the Australia democrats, who defected to the Labor Party in 1998 and was briefly the member for Dixon until 2001, until she lost to Peter Dutton. She is running on a platform of “change politics”, whatever we expect that to mean. Simon Cant is a former independent councillor on Manly Council.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/kernot-sets-her-sights-on-senate-seat-20100730-10zwv.html
Group AF – Liberal Democratic Party
A libertarian party, advocating for free-market economic policies, small government and social policies based on individual liberty. Although they are economically right wing, they also oppose internet censorship and advocate for policies like same-sex marriage and gun law deregulation.
http://www.ldp.org.au/
Ungrouped:
Hamish Richardson – Very little can be found about him, apart from the fact that he’s a Journalist.
Norman H Joseph Hooper – Described as a Pensioner and Economics Researcher.
Stewart Scott-Irving
Ran as an Independent in the 2008 Lyne By-election (for Mark Vaile’s old seat, won by Independent Rob Oakshott. After the election he tried to get the by-election result disputed because he claimed the ABC had not provided him with equal time as a candidate, despite only receiving 4% of the vote. perhaps a bit loopy, he is an education consultant.
http://www.wauchopegazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/scottirving-will-contest-election/259773.aspx
Bryan Pape
Bryan Pape is a law lecturer at the University of Armidale and a former member of the National Party. His main claim to fame was a constitutional challenge he brought against the $900 payments in the Rudd government’s economic stimulus package in 2008. It got a good run in the Murdoch press.
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/bonus-payment-finally-ready-to-roll/story-e6frfmd9-1225699613528
Andrew Whelan – There are many Andrew Whelans around, including a lecturer in politics and policy at University of Armidale. However, this Andrew Whelan is a Software Engineer. Amazingly, I can’t find a website for him.
Showing posts with label political parties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political parties. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Our Political Parties Have to Be More Democratic
One of the most common complaints about our political system in Australia over the past 30 years has been that the two parties are too close together.
Personally, I think this is dubious- there remain some significant differences between the two parties. Consider the financial crisis - The Labor government responded by growing spending, giving out tax bonuses, a bank deposit guarantee, building schools and by doing an insulation program. Notwithstanding the problems with the insulation scheme, these policies demonstrate a belief in the power of government to solve problems - a marked shift from the Howard era.
If the liberals had been in charge during the financial crisis, their policies would have been much different. I believe that they would have cut taxes, cut spending, and passed another round of workchoices to help "save jobs".
If anything, the difference between the parties is probably a bit bigger than it was 20 year ago, when both parties swallowed the neoliberal agenda as a whole. But despite this, it's probably a valid criticism to say that the divide between the parties on policy matters no longer resembles a grand canyon as it did 40 years ago. When people feel that they have less of a choice, or that there aren't big things at stake, they are less motivated to participate in democracy.
Look at the US election in 1996 - a voter turnout of 49%. Or the UK elections of 2001 (59%) and 2005 (61%), down from 71% in 1997 when Blair swept to power.
It's easy to measure the health of politics in other countries, because the level of engagement can be measured easily by the turnout at elections.
But that shouldn't be our only measure. Indeed in Australia, we can't measure it this way because voting is compulsory. We have to look elsewhere, to other things. Other countries are plagued by deeper structural problems, and Australia shares them.
Decline in participation can be measured a number of ways:
- the decline in trade union membership, community organisations and clubs
- an increase in the amount of voters who don't identify with one party, or say they are "uncommitted"
- a decline in participation in community events or religious institutions
And above all things in my opinion, a decline can be seen in the levels of membership of all our political parties. With the exception of the greens, membership of all major and most minor political parties over the past 20 years has been falling.
The common thread to all of this disenfranchisement is one thing: every single one of these political parties has all too regularly defied the popular will of their membership and support base - and has lost members and valuable funding in the process.
The Nationals have spent the better part of the last 25 years losing their rural base, firstly to the liberals, then to one nation, then to Independents and the liberals again. A party of agrarian socialism, they regularly refused to stand up to the liberals in government when free market tendencies or service cuts damaged rural constituencies.
One Nation gained its relevance when racist working class voters wanted to voice their disapproval of Labor's social progressiveness. One Nation lost its relevance when John Howard stole many of their policies, like temporary protection visas.
John Howard drove small L liberals out of the liberal party starting in the 1980's and the job became nearly complete after he scuttled the republic and exploited the Tampa crisis. Now the party has been taken over by extremists. A young Liberal MP, Alex Hawke, has stated that "nobody joins the liberal party if they believe in compulsory student unionism, legalising drug injecting rooms or lowering the age of consent for lowering the homosexual age of consent". Nor is it a place for people who believe in a market-based response to fight man-made Climate Change, as Malcolm Turnbull rudely found out. Many small l liberals could support some of those policies.
20 years ago, progressive individualists would have joined the Australian democrats - but now they no longer exist. The reason for that is the Australia democrats breached their trust with the public and their members, after they voted for the GST. Meg Lees defied the wishes of party members, and they duly responded - by leaving.
Which leaves us with the labor party. This is a party that has suffered plenty of setbacks for the ordinary party member. ALP members starting in the mid-1980's had to first deal with the party's adoption of neoliberalism and the corresponding decline of trade unions. They then had to deal with mistreatment at the hands of factions, branch stacking, and a decline in respect for the rights of the ordinary party member.
In most cases, labor governments these days produce policies that are often far to the right of the wishes of rank and file members. The parliamentary wing regularly adopts loose interpretations of the platform. Rank and file power over policy and preselections has also withered away. If this wasn't enough, the party had to then deal with the many wedge issues of John Howard - many people exited political involvement completely over the tampa issue - others ran off to the wide open arms of the greens.
The greens? They're growing, mainly through grassroots activism and standing on principle. And family first? Well that party gets propped up by Evangelical churches. Both of these parties grow because they share one thing - they are rare in that they have not yet seriously defied the policy wishes of their members.
Yes, the state of our political parties is a sad place indeed. Is it any wonder that people don't want to get involved in politics?
Usually, if something is drastically wrong, people will join political parties. But that hasn't been happening - despite the financial crisis, despite big issues like Iraq and Global Warming, people stay switched off. The push factors are there for people to want to join political parties, but he pull factors aren't. Where are we going wrong?
I am convinced that the problem lies with our political parties themselves. They are undemocratic and their internal structures are mostly an embarrassment. Most of them would be in debt. Some barely have enough members to run a campaign - in one sad example, the liberals actually pay people to man booths on election day.
When people don't join political parties, it robs them of two things - money, and people. Usually every strong organisation needs both of these. But eventually, some clever political party staffers worked out that:
a) less people meant it was easier to run an undemocratic organisation exactly how you wanted
b) if you needed money for campaign contributions, the private sector would gladly open its wallet, but only a price.
So what was the point of having pesky rank and filers? Why put up with them when you could operate instead what Carmen Lawrence once called a "Political Corporation"?
The problem with this is that big donors expect big favors. Look at the influence of property developers in NSW - they give big bucks to both parties, but particularly Labor. Why? Because Bob Carr had a philosophy that Sydney was already full, so any land that did get released was very valuable. So the big developers lobbied the government for more land release, or they bought land that they then lobbied to have rezoned.
These developers made a killing - they then built and sold big houses on big blocks and made even more cash. Bob Carr ironically helped create the mcmansion and with them came the stubborn voters whose fear of interest rates kept John Howard in office.
Corporations have sought to buy interest for a long time, especially in NSW. The answer to this has been the call for public funding of elections. Certainly preferable to government by donation. But hang on a second - taxpayers then pay tax so a party can run an election. Why should parties get access to the public purse when they could be raising that money through higher membership? Look at Obama's campaign - he was the more left wing candidate, and yet he was able to refuse public funding because the average individual donors gave money and support.
Political parties are an institution of democracy, and thus a public good. Parliamentary democracy as we know it can't function without them. So therefore it's totally legitimate to ask what we have to do to fix them. Parties simply MUST make themselves a more attractive product otherwise they won't survive. People these days won't join a party just so they can rock up to a branch and talk about things. Any old amateur with internet access can discuss politics online. What people do care about is power - the power to influence events, policies and the selection of candidates. When our political parties don't give that to them, they zone out, or they join some sort of fringe lobby group with no structural power, leaving people further frustrated. .
The ordinary citizen must have rights when they join any political party. Rules must be democratic and should encourage debate and criticism. And the right to exercise your vote on policy and candidacy matters should be paramount.
Since this a blog of social democracy, and I'm a labor supporter, Labor must also rediscover it's mass-based past. The Liberal Party will always have the backing of wealthy individuals and business. What the Labor party needs is a strong membership that is organised en masse and participates wholeheartedly.
The Labor party was not founded as a political corporation. In fact, it was formed because it believed the opposite about itself and about society. It believed that collectively, we are stronger. It believed in engagement, participation, and above all things, it believed in mass-collective organisation. Because the working class protected itself when it stuck together. And the working class had power when it stuck together. The strength of the early Labor parties and trade unions was not in their money, but in their mass membership.
This is how politics should be - not a one way conversation from the TV speakers into your ears. It's a discussion. It's about participation and involvement. It's about ordinary people shaping the movement, the policies, and ordinary people choosing their candidates, and ordinary people running the campaign. We have lost sight of our collective consciousness - through parties and trade unions. Plenty of working class people have never joined unions, and have in turn never understood that their living standards are best advanced through collective action. As a result, many turn to the opposite vision offered by the liberals, which says to poor workers that an individual can get ahead simply if they work hard, and that liberals would help you do so by preventing immigrants from stealing your job and by keeping the economy strong. We must break that chain and focus attention where it should be - greedy banks, polluters, monopolies and corporations.
And for goodness sake, lets end the madness of the nation's major social democratic party not even being internally democratic.
Personally, I think this is dubious- there remain some significant differences between the two parties. Consider the financial crisis - The Labor government responded by growing spending, giving out tax bonuses, a bank deposit guarantee, building schools and by doing an insulation program. Notwithstanding the problems with the insulation scheme, these policies demonstrate a belief in the power of government to solve problems - a marked shift from the Howard era.
If the liberals had been in charge during the financial crisis, their policies would have been much different. I believe that they would have cut taxes, cut spending, and passed another round of workchoices to help "save jobs".
If anything, the difference between the parties is probably a bit bigger than it was 20 year ago, when both parties swallowed the neoliberal agenda as a whole. But despite this, it's probably a valid criticism to say that the divide between the parties on policy matters no longer resembles a grand canyon as it did 40 years ago. When people feel that they have less of a choice, or that there aren't big things at stake, they are less motivated to participate in democracy.
Look at the US election in 1996 - a voter turnout of 49%. Or the UK elections of 2001 (59%) and 2005 (61%), down from 71% in 1997 when Blair swept to power.
It's easy to measure the health of politics in other countries, because the level of engagement can be measured easily by the turnout at elections.
But that shouldn't be our only measure. Indeed in Australia, we can't measure it this way because voting is compulsory. We have to look elsewhere, to other things. Other countries are plagued by deeper structural problems, and Australia shares them.
Decline in participation can be measured a number of ways:
- the decline in trade union membership, community organisations and clubs
- an increase in the amount of voters who don't identify with one party, or say they are "uncommitted"
- a decline in participation in community events or religious institutions
And above all things in my opinion, a decline can be seen in the levels of membership of all our political parties. With the exception of the greens, membership of all major and most minor political parties over the past 20 years has been falling.
The common thread to all of this disenfranchisement is one thing: every single one of these political parties has all too regularly defied the popular will of their membership and support base - and has lost members and valuable funding in the process.
The Nationals have spent the better part of the last 25 years losing their rural base, firstly to the liberals, then to one nation, then to Independents and the liberals again. A party of agrarian socialism, they regularly refused to stand up to the liberals in government when free market tendencies or service cuts damaged rural constituencies.
One Nation gained its relevance when racist working class voters wanted to voice their disapproval of Labor's social progressiveness. One Nation lost its relevance when John Howard stole many of their policies, like temporary protection visas.
John Howard drove small L liberals out of the liberal party starting in the 1980's and the job became nearly complete after he scuttled the republic and exploited the Tampa crisis. Now the party has been taken over by extremists. A young Liberal MP, Alex Hawke, has stated that "nobody joins the liberal party if they believe in compulsory student unionism, legalising drug injecting rooms or lowering the age of consent for lowering the homosexual age of consent". Nor is it a place for people who believe in a market-based response to fight man-made Climate Change, as Malcolm Turnbull rudely found out. Many small l liberals could support some of those policies.
20 years ago, progressive individualists would have joined the Australian democrats - but now they no longer exist. The reason for that is the Australia democrats breached their trust with the public and their members, after they voted for the GST. Meg Lees defied the wishes of party members, and they duly responded - by leaving.
Which leaves us with the labor party. This is a party that has suffered plenty of setbacks for the ordinary party member. ALP members starting in the mid-1980's had to first deal with the party's adoption of neoliberalism and the corresponding decline of trade unions. They then had to deal with mistreatment at the hands of factions, branch stacking, and a decline in respect for the rights of the ordinary party member.
In most cases, labor governments these days produce policies that are often far to the right of the wishes of rank and file members. The parliamentary wing regularly adopts loose interpretations of the platform. Rank and file power over policy and preselections has also withered away. If this wasn't enough, the party had to then deal with the many wedge issues of John Howard - many people exited political involvement completely over the tampa issue - others ran off to the wide open arms of the greens.
The greens? They're growing, mainly through grassroots activism and standing on principle. And family first? Well that party gets propped up by Evangelical churches. Both of these parties grow because they share one thing - they are rare in that they have not yet seriously defied the policy wishes of their members.
Yes, the state of our political parties is a sad place indeed. Is it any wonder that people don't want to get involved in politics?
Usually, if something is drastically wrong, people will join political parties. But that hasn't been happening - despite the financial crisis, despite big issues like Iraq and Global Warming, people stay switched off. The push factors are there for people to want to join political parties, but he pull factors aren't. Where are we going wrong?
I am convinced that the problem lies with our political parties themselves. They are undemocratic and their internal structures are mostly an embarrassment. Most of them would be in debt. Some barely have enough members to run a campaign - in one sad example, the liberals actually pay people to man booths on election day.
When people don't join political parties, it robs them of two things - money, and people. Usually every strong organisation needs both of these. But eventually, some clever political party staffers worked out that:
a) less people meant it was easier to run an undemocratic organisation exactly how you wanted
b) if you needed money for campaign contributions, the private sector would gladly open its wallet, but only a price.
So what was the point of having pesky rank and filers? Why put up with them when you could operate instead what Carmen Lawrence once called a "Political Corporation"?
The problem with this is that big donors expect big favors. Look at the influence of property developers in NSW - they give big bucks to both parties, but particularly Labor. Why? Because Bob Carr had a philosophy that Sydney was already full, so any land that did get released was very valuable. So the big developers lobbied the government for more land release, or they bought land that they then lobbied to have rezoned.
These developers made a killing - they then built and sold big houses on big blocks and made even more cash. Bob Carr ironically helped create the mcmansion and with them came the stubborn voters whose fear of interest rates kept John Howard in office.
Corporations have sought to buy interest for a long time, especially in NSW. The answer to this has been the call for public funding of elections. Certainly preferable to government by donation. But hang on a second - taxpayers then pay tax so a party can run an election. Why should parties get access to the public purse when they could be raising that money through higher membership? Look at Obama's campaign - he was the more left wing candidate, and yet he was able to refuse public funding because the average individual donors gave money and support.
Political parties are an institution of democracy, and thus a public good. Parliamentary democracy as we know it can't function without them. So therefore it's totally legitimate to ask what we have to do to fix them. Parties simply MUST make themselves a more attractive product otherwise they won't survive. People these days won't join a party just so they can rock up to a branch and talk about things. Any old amateur with internet access can discuss politics online. What people do care about is power - the power to influence events, policies and the selection of candidates. When our political parties don't give that to them, they zone out, or they join some sort of fringe lobby group with no structural power, leaving people further frustrated. .
The ordinary citizen must have rights when they join any political party. Rules must be democratic and should encourage debate and criticism. And the right to exercise your vote on policy and candidacy matters should be paramount.
Since this a blog of social democracy, and I'm a labor supporter, Labor must also rediscover it's mass-based past. The Liberal Party will always have the backing of wealthy individuals and business. What the Labor party needs is a strong membership that is organised en masse and participates wholeheartedly.
The Labor party was not founded as a political corporation. In fact, it was formed because it believed the opposite about itself and about society. It believed that collectively, we are stronger. It believed in engagement, participation, and above all things, it believed in mass-collective organisation. Because the working class protected itself when it stuck together. And the working class had power when it stuck together. The strength of the early Labor parties and trade unions was not in their money, but in their mass membership.
This is how politics should be - not a one way conversation from the TV speakers into your ears. It's a discussion. It's about participation and involvement. It's about ordinary people shaping the movement, the policies, and ordinary people choosing their candidates, and ordinary people running the campaign. We have lost sight of our collective consciousness - through parties and trade unions. Plenty of working class people have never joined unions, and have in turn never understood that their living standards are best advanced through collective action. As a result, many turn to the opposite vision offered by the liberals, which says to poor workers that an individual can get ahead simply if they work hard, and that liberals would help you do so by preventing immigrants from stealing your job and by keeping the economy strong. We must break that chain and focus attention where it should be - greedy banks, polluters, monopolies and corporations.
And for goodness sake, lets end the madness of the nation's major social democratic party not even being internally democratic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)