On Tactical Alliances
Recently, Albert Langer wrote that there was no reason why One Nation members should
not be members of 'Neither'.
Albert is right in principle. There is no reason why people or organisations with
fundamentally different outlooks (or even completely counterposed ones) should not be
conclude adhoc alliances in pursuit of some specific well defined objective which they
agree is desirable. Whether such alliances are principled or desirable in practice
depends on how one answers a number of questions.
1. Does the alliance necessarily bring nearer goals to which one or more of the
participating parties are hostile?
Every organisation that concludes an alliance with a political rival hopes to get more
out of the alliance than it concedes to its rival - principally by manipulating the
shared resources to augment its broader goals - while suspecting its rival of
attempting to do just the same thing! The challenge for the participting organisations
is always to give their rivals as little as is consistent with efficiently achieving
the agreed common goal. But this in turn presumes each organisation having a clear
sense of what it values and what it opposes. Any organisation which lacks this clear
sense of purpose is likely to finish up doing the leg work for causes whose merits
are, at best, dubious - and therefore unprincipled. And whatever one may think of One
Nation - they certainly have a much clearer sense of who they are and what they value
than does 'Neither' - not to speak of being many times better resourced, having a
clear set of historical traditions upon which to draw etc? Unless there is an early
clarification of Neither's position on those matters of importance to leftist
supporters of Neither - the likelihood is that Neither, if it survives, will become a
kind of One Nation electoral think tank.
2. Can the participating organisations criticise each other without either
confounding the common goal or destroying the adhoc alliance?
Here is the nub of the problem - and David Kidd has done us all a favour by providing
an early example where this is put to the test. "Stop dumping on One Nation or take me
off your mailing list" 'Neither' can choose between criticising One Nation or
fracturing the alliance before it even starts. That, of itself, says how unprincipled
the allaince would have to be in practice - for the business of preserving the
allaince would surely entail a mutual non-aggression pact, and a deliberate attempt to
muddy the political meaning of this or that political adventure, or, at best,
declaring that 'Neither' was interested in nothing more than a populist and classless
electoral reform program. But then, there are already plenty of liberal electoral
reform organisations - and the question would arise - why have Neither at all? If
Albert is right, and quite a few One Nation supporters are likely to be in this milieu
- then clarification of Neither's attitude to One Nation (and indeed the other
parties on offer) is essential. After all, the name 'Neither' does imply opposition
only to two parties - but says nothing at all about the Democrats, Greens, One Nation
etc ?. Perhaps the organisation should rethink its name and call itself 'none'. After
all, from a Marxist viewpoint - all current political parties are currently
politically opposed to the interests of working people. This position would radically
distinguish Neither not only from One Nation, but also from simple electoral
reformers. Why not put them all last? (by writing 1 next to all candidates or crossing
them all out )
Of course, if Neither is not an organisation in the usual sense of the word - but
merely a kind of forum for discussion and temporary tactical manoevers around
hostility to the bipartisan electoral fraud going down- then the issue of One Nation
supporters becoming members simply doesn't arise. Every common activity is justified
by reference to immediate goals. No-one can assume because one alliance took place
that another will follow. There will be no organisational imprimatur to which one can
refer. Each person will have to decide for themselves what they want to do and with
whom they wish to do it. Then each of us will have to take responsibility for our own
politics - and isn't that the foundation of any bona fide democracy?
A Final Thought on One Nation
Much is made of One Nation's racist positions on Asians and Aboriginals. I can't help
but think that what stands behind the spleen of the major parties vented at one nation
is a desparate desire to distinguish themselves from a party whose fundamental politcs
they share. Pauline Hanson is right when she claims that she is only saying what the
major parties are thinking. All of the parties (including One Nation) share the same
views on the nature of Australia's polity - the assumption that a mixed capitalist
economy with some state contriols is the ideal for Australia; that Australia must
preserve strong military alliances directed at restraining threats from the north;
that there are ideal levels of migration, ideal levels of tariff and non-tariff
protection, that eliminating welfare fraud among working people is an important state
objective,. One Nation merely follows through on the logical extension of the
bipartisan nationalism of the major parties - disagreeing solely on what 'the Nation'
really means - and then only on semantic grounds. That's why One Nation steals votes
from all the major parties - because the supporters of those parties have never heard
anything different. Leftists are for NO NATION - we are for the unity of working
people on a world scale, regardless of birth. By that standard, all 'national parties'
have racist policies. - and that's why leftists are opposed to all the parties
including One Nation.
