[TE]
I would also like to add some of my reflection after finishing
campagning for the Greens.
Spending most of my time speaking to unemployed people at Centrelinks I
realised how little the whole process has to do with their lives.
Their anger and frustation is swallowed up by the preferential voting
system and their interests largely ignored by both of the major parties.
Not being likely to vote Liberal and being in a safe Labour seat they
are not even given Lip service by politicians.
[AL]
This anger and frustration is widespread throughout Australia and other
countries. Our electoral system adds a unique feature that people
actually
cast what they think are "protest votes" that end up being counted as
votes
for the ALP or Coalition, even if via minor parties and independents. As
soon as even small numbers of people started expressing real protest
votes
which could not be counted as votes for the ALP and Coalition (the
tamest conceivable form of "protest") they resorted to illegal coercion
and
ballot-rigging. Obviously those parties (and the Democrats) attach great
importance to trying to prevent people taking even the most minimal
step from "anger and frustration" to building a real movement for
change. They
are VERY anxious to keep even the protest vote "swallowed up by the
preferential
voting system".
[TE]
Each of their lives are mini-tragedies of wasted potential not only for
them but the community at large. They are also bullied by beuracracy
which they are slowly getting angrier at.
I do not consider their worth to be expressed in any vote even a Neither
vote or a vote for me. They deserve a more genuine control and power
over their lives than is offered by the ballot box.
[AL]
They won't win much through the ballot box, but until they take the
first
step of not sheepishly voting in favor of their oppressors they cannot
take the next steps. At present more than 95% of these people actually
vote
in favor of the ALP or the Coalition (usually the ALP) at elections.
They deserve
nothing at all until have become a good deal less servile than that -
and they
will also get what they deserve. Leave sympathy for their tragic plight
to the
do-gooders. Instead help them learn who are their oppressors and how to
take
the first steps towards actually fighting them.
[TE]
I still happily support the Greens only because they do not aim for a
top -down governing of communities but support local grass roots
community democracy. However the experience has soured me of being a
candidate even if the experience was a great deal of learning.
I also support Neither voting and proportional voting in the house of
reps because it will give these people a clearer voice at the ballot
box. However this is only one front of the fight and I am most
interested in organising collective direct action among unemployed
people. Ciao.
tony camilleri.
[AL]
Yes, this is only one front of the fight and there are many others.
Organizing collective direct action among unemployed people is among the
most important.
To me the central problem for all the various fronts is the lack of
any plausible program that people can unite around and say "this is
how we want to govern (whether Australia or the world)".
For example the biggest stumbling block to regular efforts to organize
collective direct action amongst the unemployed is that no such action
can
plausibly result in even a reduction, let alone elimination of
unemployment
in the present state of the world economy, and most unemployed workers
can achieve more direct benefits to themselves by looking harder for
an occasional job than by taking collective direct action about anything
they can take action around without a program to actually deal with
unemployment.
We aren't fighting for power to implement our solutions to various
problems but simply resisting whatever "they" happen to be doing on
various
fronts. This is inherently demoralizing.
Eventually we need a mass party genuinely "on the left" that is capable
of leading
the fight on various fronts as part of an overall challenge to really
change things.
There is no agreement on either the program or organizational form of
such a party
at present, so there is no mass base, and efforts to form a new one or
to rally
people around some existing organization are not going to succeed at
present.
Most activists prefer to spend their energy on "single issue" campaigns
where they can
at least hope to achieve something, and can avoid getting bogged down in
sterile
policy and organizational disputes. (The Greens owe much of their
success to providing
an umbrella for a range of such activities, and are beginning to
stagnate and decline
because of the limitations of that approach.)
But Neither could play an especially important role in paving the way
for a real mass
party on the left.
1. Fighting to re-establish free elections and win PR is a "single
issue"
campaign which could actually hope to win and which requires dealing
with the
issues of policy, tactics, organization and alliances faced by real mass
parties
in order to win. People from right across the political spectrum
should be willing to support that goal and help us win it (whether as
members or not).
2. Opposing the ALP and the Coalition "from the left" as the basis for
Neither's demand
for a representative legislature fills an obvious gap in Australian
politics which
should be attractive to many people involved in many other fronts and
existing parties
and socialist organizations, without getting involved in competition for
"recruits" or
purely factional disputes. e.g. the Greens cannot fill that gap because
many, if not
most do regard themselves as closer to the ALP than the Coalition rather
than hostile
to both, but the many Greens who are hostile to both should be able to
feel comfortable
participating in Neither to express their hostility to both at the same
time as
participating in the Green or other activities they are currently
involved in.
3. By strictly avoiding any membership criteria apart from opposition to
both the ALP and Coalition and support for PR while working out policies
and tactics to defeat the "two party state" and having open debates
about a wide range of political issues we could provide a non-factional
forum for doing serious political thinking and policy development.
4. By fighting for an electoral reform which will require majority
support, rather than
a "protest" that can hope to achieve whatever its immediate goals are by
appealing only
to one section, we are compelled to either adopt the attitudes of a
potential mass party
towards winning suppport or else fail to win our "single issue". (i.e.
we cannot kid ourselves
that we would win PR without convincing a majority of the people while
they still agree with us
about little else). PR will not be won because a majority of people
agree with Neither's
reasons for opposing the two party state but because we have succeeded
in working with people
who support representative government despite their disagreement over
other issues - including
ALP supporters, Coalition supporters etc.
>-----Original Message-----
[TE]
>This year no-one (to my knowledge) in the Greens, including me,
>recommended Neither voting on how to vote cards. This was primarily
>because the party advice was that Neither would not succeed in it's
>court challenge AND/OR would not be able to spot a neither vote in a
>booth where they did not have scrutineers. I could not even provide ANY
>scrutineers for the Greens in my electorate. Anita (from Neither)
>actually gave me the name of someone who could scrutineer for Neither
>but I did not have access to my email in time (very bad connection) so
>did not know.
>I should admit that if these conditions were repeated
(re:scrutineering)
>
>I would probably not recommend Neither voting as a candidate. I figure
>it's best to be honest.
[AL]
Green candidates who WANT to deliver their votes to the ALP (or less
likely,
the Coalition) should not join Neither. Those who WANT to vote against
both,
but feel compelled to give preferences to one or the other because
otherwise
votes for them will not be counted face a real problem.
It isn't actually Neither's problem, but the Greens problem, and it is a
real
one for them. From my perspective the Greens would be better off
themselves
if they simply fought for seats in the Senate and abandoned their hope
of
(occasionally) getting a few crumbs of public funding from passing the
4%
barrier in House of Representatives elections by taking exactly the same
principled stand as Neither. Place the candidates of any Party that
refuses
to establish a representative legislature (let alone those that oppose
free
elections), equal last. If the ALP, Coalition and Democrats want to rig
the
elections by not counting your votes, that is their problem - at least
you
won't be voting for them and thus endorsing their opinion that you are
easily
bullied wimps not entitled to representation.
As long as the Greens support one of the parties that refuses them
representation
and actually encourage their supporters to vote for them, they have no
hope whatever
of gaining representation, no matter how many first preference votes or
how much
public funding they receive.
Once they make a real issue of the fact that they are refused
representation,
by refusing to passively submit and collaborate in that in exchange for
a rather
paltry bribe ($1.62 per vote they deliver to either the ALP or the
Coalition)
they can BEGIN to mobilize public support for their views
being represented. Until then they cannot possibly do so - in which
case, what
is the point in standing for House of Representatives seats and
receiving
campaign funds which have to be spent on campaigns to encourage people
to vote
for the parties that deny them representation?
This strikes me as so obvious, that I have no idea what arguments to
present
to the Greens to make it clear to them. Any suggestions?
Or have I missed something?
[AL]
>>My view is that the membership criteria should simply be rejecting
both
>
>the ALP and the Coalition by voting against them both until they agree
>to PR. Within that we should have open public debates about policies,
nd
>
>in the course of those debates adopt policies, such as support for
>increased immigration, that would naturally incline people broadly on
>the left to continue working with us and incline those on the right to
>look elsewhere. But without requiring support for any particular policy
>on anything as a criteria of membership so that winning and losing
>debates votes on policy is seen as a model for a future representative
>legislature rather than a means to establish another faction.
[TE]
>I like what you are saying. Please consider also this idea. Some people
>are already obviously members by their level of contribution.
>Perhaps avenues to contribute then is more important to gain more of
>these members than a formal way of joining.
>Others like myself who (I'm currently suffering burn out) may not do
>much could be listed as "fellow travellers" because of coinciding
views.
>Fellow travellers (F.T.) could be on contact trees and be made aware of
>avenues to contribute so that thay could help out if possible.
>Members though would be regular contributers and thus have a say in any
>specific statements or strategy. Moving from being a F.T. to a member
>would be simple and fluid.
[AL]
I disagree. If membership criteria are strictly limited as proposed
above,
so that joining does not imply agreement with any particular policies,
why
do we need a special category of F.T. for people who are willing to
support
some activities but not willing to join? If they join, they get a vote
as
members and no other obligations, as is the case with most organizations
that people join. Most of our activities should not be oriented to our
own members (like political sects) but would of course be aimed at
winning
support and involvement in debate with anyone at all. This would include
all sorts of telephone trees and email lists etc not limited to members,
(including announcements to people who just want to be kept informed),
but needs no special category of F.T. for people who decide not to join.
Naturally we would provide literature and propose activities to, (and
accept
donations from) anyone at all to help them persuade others to agree with
what
we are saying. Those who want a say in deciding what we are saying would
join
and those who don't would not.
>Thanks for your comments. Please keep us posted on the strategy from
>here. Is there a court challenge pending??
[AL]
Information about pending court challenges is in the subject thread:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1998/1242.html
Either people like you will help work out a strategy, or there won't be
one.
