[DK]
Albert wrote:
>It is logically possible for Neither to
>become an organization which includes both One Nation supporters
>and people "on the left" united solely by its core principles of
>opposition to the ALP and Coalition two party state and its objective
of
>achieving PR. This thread is largely about whether or not we
>should attempt to do that.
Neither will have made an enormous contribution to good Australian
government if it succeeds in achieving its core aim as stated on its
website
of seeking to smash the two party system .... and nothing else.
But don't underestimate the magnitude of that task.... better funded
and
better organized groups have already tried and failed.
You will need the co-operation of every ally you can muster just to
achieve
that one goal, no matter what those diverse allies may individually
support
on any other issue you care to name.
My recommendation therefore is that you nurture supporters from wherever
they may come; avoid alienating any; concentrate on achieving your
primary
goal rather than being sidetracked by the multitude of other issues that
come along; and leave your supporters the freedom decide for themselves
whether to support any other group, party, or independent who may
appeal.
[AL]
Basically I agree and see no problem with supporters of One Nation
being members of Neither.
However there may be a severe problem with alienating potential
supporters "on the left" if we as an organization do not take a clear
stand against the racist policies of One Nation at the same time as we
are engaged in parallel efforts against the two party state and for PR,
which will after all be of immediate benefit to One Nation and of little
immediate benefit to people "on the left" (who are a long way from being
able to form any kind of mass party that would win even 1 quota in a
House of Representatives based on PR).
One Nation has been able to woo a substantial section of National party
voters, as well as many Liberal and ALP voters away from the parties
they support.
In my view there is a much larger pool of disillusioned ALP voters on
the left of the ALP who could be won away from it by an organization
that is clearly (but non-factionally) "on the left" but are unlikely to
be swayed by an organization that appears "neutral". There is also
a problem with the amount of energy that people will put in to a
political organization that maintains an artificial neutrality.
(PR societies have existed for many years without many people getting
fired up enough about their views to really put an effort into
"winning").
A fight to "smash the two party system" requires reasons for opposing
the two parties that can mobilize people to actually smash them. The
mere "desirability" of PR is not enough. In putting forward reasons we
have to express an "attitude" towards political issues, even if we don't
explicitly have a "policy" on numerous matters we might disagree about.
That "attitude" is inevitably coloured by being "on the left" or "on the
right".
If we do express an attitude "on the left", and One Nation supporters
can "wear" being part of an organization whose core principles they
agree with but that is also clearly hostile to the party they support,
that would be fine by me. But I don't think it would be easy.
On the other hand, if the organization is "on the left" it may be even
harder to avoid distraction resulting from differences "on any issue you
care to name". That has been the history of attempts to organize broad
organizations "on the left" in Australia.
I believe the key in either case is to maintain a clear distinction
between "criteria for membership" and "policies" (as the mainstream
political parties do).
To achieve the core aim of smashing the two party system I believe it
will be necessary to demonstrate the feasability of a representative
legislature in which a full range of political viewpoints actually
debate each other rather than just two very similar parties abusing each
other over trivialities.
A "Parliament of the Net" conducting higher level political debates than
occur in Canberra or the mass media could contribute to that.
Ongoing discussions in this mailing list about Neither policies
conducted in the same "higher level", spirit could help prepare for
that. Let's try it and see how we go.
[AL]
>My view is that in the long run, One Nation will lead opposition to the
>two party state and support for PR from the right, Neither will do so
>from the left and we will coordinate our activities to the extent
>necessary through direct liasion between opposing organizations with
>certain common objectives and through common support for "neutral"
>organizations such as Electoral Reform Societies which really do have
no
>other agenda.
[DK]
I realise the categories "left" and "right" can have some uses, but they
are
often a hindrance when it is assumed that the two groupings need to
oppose
rather than co-operate in achieving desired goals. I truly believe more
can
be accomplished by co-operation than by competition.
Dave
[AL] Well I'm all for co-operation (as well as competition).
It was great meeting a group of Christian Right-To-Lifers who came round
to express their good wishes on my release from prison and persisted in
saying that I was a "righteous" person despite being very clear on the
fundamental differences in world outlook.
The most enjoyable united front I have been in was with the Liberals
against the ALP over the Australia card as our differences of principle
were quite clear and it was basically free of the internal
competition characteristic of factional "left" united fronts. We simply
cooperated to defeat the Australia card (though of course Howard was not
really opposed to it and short-circuited a movement that could have
actually brought down the Hawke government by announcing the "bungle"
concerning Senate approval of regulations which got them off the hook).
I can see such a united front being practical on a "single issue" like a
Vote No campaign for the referendum. If One Nation took that position
(btw does anyone know if they will?), differences between them and other
participants such as Monarchists and radical republicans should not be
an obstacle to cooperation in achieving a common goal with a division of
labor in working to achieve that goal.
My point is that "smashing the two party system" is not a "single issue"
but involves an overall "attitude". Converging attacks from both right
and left may actually be more effective than attempting to express a
neutral "attitude" which is not really supported by anybody in Neither.
BTW, single member electorates and a two party system have survived only
in Australia, the US and Britain because of the relative "moderation" of
the politics of those countries. Sharper differences between different
political parties in other countries require PR to avoid a denial of
representation that could otherwise lead to civil strife ;-)
