Greetings, all. Over the course of the last two days, I have been
sensing a general interpretation of one who is an anarchist as one who
does not vote. That is understandable, given the fact that anarchism has
been more or less swept out of the history books (how often do we hear
about Spain, 1936?). As a general rule, let's remember that anarchists
come in all shapes, sizes, colors, etc. and have widely differing views
on how to librate people (or more broadly, nature) from hierarchical,
oppressive institutions. For example, I consider myself anarchist, but
I voted yesterday. So I am not sure statements which equate anarchism
with non-voting are accurate.
To tie this into ecofeminism, my sense is that ecofeminism
naturally aligns with anarchism in the sense that both value-systems
consider liberation of central importance and both see hierarchy (whether
the State, your boss, or the Dean of the University) as a source of
injustice. Differences of opinion about whether one should vote are not,
in my mind, evidence of a conflict between any ideologies, but are rather
individual responses to local circumstances. I wouldn't know, on the
basis of my experiences, whether to encourage a Guatemalan peasant to
vote in an election...
Any thoughts?
-- Joel
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 10 15:57:01 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 09:59:25 +1100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorraine Elliott)
Subject: Re: The world outside the US!
In response to James and Jayne:
>
>Agreed... Sorry Lorraine. I, for one, have just been immersed in this
>political stuff. I do think that this is not entirely irrelavent for the
>"rest of the world" though. As I look around the world, I see a marked
>increase in reactionary violence against many people -- including
>environmentalists in some cases. Certainly there seems to be a backlash
>against women and an increase in ethnic conflicts worldwide. Perhaps not
>in Australia? I hope not. I would like to think there is some place on
>the globe that is not being racked by these negative forces.
>
>Jayne
Obviously 'we' (or perhaps I should say at least some of us) have been
paying attention to the US elections (mind you, it's hard not to -
sometimes I think that the Australian media has forgotten its geography!)
and of course many of us are concerned to see what seems to be a 'backlash'
phenomena although the interpretations we are getting are various - many of
which seem to suggest that this is anti-Clinton rather than
anti-progressive (?).
Do we find this kind of reactionary response in Australia - bits, but
possibly much less so than in the US, although perhaps not all would
agreed. Our conservative party (which, just to confuse things is called,
here, the Liberal party - and indeed it is both conservative and liberal in
the classical individualist sense) is in opposition at the federal level
(we have a parliamentary system which means that the executive - Prime
Minister and Cabinet - is drawn from the majority party in the Parliament -
a bicameral legislature) and is in something of a disarray at present. The
government (the Australian Labor Party) has a mixed reputation on
environmental, feminist and related concerns. At present they have
submitted to parliament a bill which criminalises racial villification and
is trying to establish an Aboriginal Land Fund which will provide some
assistance to dispossessed peoples to buy 'their' land (we also have Native
Title legislation which gives effect to a recent High Court decision that
Australia was not terra nullius when white 'settlers' colonised the
country); the ALP has also just recently adopted a 'quota' system that 35%
of all seats held by the party must be held by women by (I think) 2000 (but
I would need to check the year) - of course many of us have mixed views
about this - it will get more women into Parliament (and they will be good
women, too) but the fact that we need quotas indicates that there hasn't
been the change in society that would simply accept women as political
candidates. The government has also just introduced a sexual privacy bill
designed, in part, to provide a federal basis for overturning legislation
in the state of Tasmania which continues to make homosexual activity a
criminal offence. So there are some changes, although not far enough in
many respects. On the other hand, Australia is one of the highest per
capita greenhouse gas emitters in the world and is doing poorly at dealing
with this, has recently been taking something of a neo-colonial attitude to
ecologically sustainable development in the Pacific, and is now debating
the renewing of woodchip licenses (strongly opposed by environmentalists).
On the other hand, Australia was at the lead in overturning the Antarctic
Minerals Convention, has argued strongly on chemical weapons control, has
been strong on the Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary, has taken a high
profile in desertification negotiations (not surprisingly - land
degradation is our biggest environmental problem), and submitted a formal,
published statement on women and the environment to UNCED. So - how does
one judge such a record and against what? There is a right-wing,
conservative trend within society, but I am not convinced that it has the
ear of society in the way that it seems to have in the US.
Sorry to go on so long - here endeth the lesson!
Lorraine
__________________________________________________________________________
| Dr Lorraine Elliott Phone: (61 6) 249 0589 |
| Department of Political Science Fax: (61 6) 249 5054 |
| Faculty of Arts |
| Australian National University |
| Canberra, ACT 0200 |
| AUSTRALIA |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
