2016-05-15
Chilla Bulbeck
Following the launch of the Facebook page for our candidate for Curtin, Viv Glance, I – of course – asked all my friends to like the page. Eagle-eyed Greens member June Lowe responded, 'thanks for recommending Viv Glance's FB - nice pic and approach but 'may I add (politely) that I was surprised that the descriptor politician is used? Junes reasons were that Viv was not yet a politician and that 'it's a title that rarely scores positive points.
Rosanne Bersten, the Australian Greens National Communications Coordinator, explained that 'politician was a good search function word, allowed the Facebook page to also identify political party and whether standing at Federal, State or local level. 'Its also necessary if the person is elected and changing a page type is very difficult. This is optimistic in our case, as Curtin requires an 18.7% swing as the 9th safest Liberal seat in the country.
Googling, I discovered that politician does not always define an elected official, but that most definitions included a pejorative aspect, for example 'more concerned about winning favour or retaining power than about maintaining principles; 'deceives or outmanoeuvres others for personal gain; from the words “poly” meaning “many” and “tics” meaning “blood-sucking parasites”.
In the 1960s, growing up I was told not to ask questions about 'money, religion or politics. In those days (almost) everyone you met had enrolled to vote, had a religious affiliation and had an income. One didnt talk about these shared conditions because heated argument was envisaged as likely. Instead stick to the inconsequential: the weather or leisure pursuits. But why my following the Dockers and you following the Eagles be considered a safe difference whereas I follow the Greens and you follow the Liberals is not?
Because one is inconsequential and the other goes to the values that divide us? This perhaps explains the response I received when I offered a Meet the Candidate forum at a retirement home several years ago: 'We dont want to upset the residents. We dont want to upset the residents by considering the future we want, the collective society we share, and how to achieve these things.
A colleague, from Finland, says she experiences Australian political discourse as incredibly adversarial name-calling. By contrast, in a televised debate between two Finnish politicians at opposite ends of the spectrum, instead of attacking each other, they sought common ground by finding points of agreement in their positions. So, perhaps, all politicians in Finland are like the Greens in Australia?
In calling our candidates politicians, are the Greens engaged in a recuperative process? Are we, like the LGBTI community working with 'queer or feminists working with 'slut, seeking to redefine 'politician as highly principled 'statesman or stateswoman or 'skilled in political government or administration (also among the google definitions)? Are we kidding ourselves?
When people tell me why the Greens are different from the other political parties, they say things like:
Bob Brown has always said that he doesnt mind who introduces our Greens policies as long as they are introduced.
What the Greens politicians say in the chamber of the Senate is the same as what they say out of it.
The Greens vote on our principles, and this means that we will negotiate with Labor and with the Liberals to get an outcome.
These approaches are so far removed from parties for whom winning is the only reason to be in politics that Labor senators are livid when we vote with the Liberals for publication of the amount of taxes paid by our richest corporations or Optional Preferential Voting (even though it might not improve our chances of winning seats). No-one, including the senators I have spoken to, has satisfactorily explained why Labor senators vilified us so much in our quest to increase voters ability to direct their vote.
I see the ALP as our allies and not our enemies to the extent we share a progressive agenda (increasingly less so over time I know). I also see the social justice and environmental movement as allies and the Greens as their parliamentary voice. I cant really understand why when members of that social movement dont reciprocate.
These are some of their reasons:
1.'We cant look partisan. We have to look even-handed.
But if you are committed to stopping catastrophic climate change or increasing Australias aid budget or finding safe pathways for refugees, you as an organisation are declaring your 'hand. And its for progressive social justice and planetary salvation. Who is supporting that in parliament?
2.'The Liberal government wont fund us if they think we are just a “front” for the Greens.
Since John Howards time, The Liberal Party have systematically defunded organisations that criticise their policies. Isnt it time organisations committed to participatory democracy stood up against this muzzling of debate and discussion? By refusing to call out the government, the progressive social movement conforms with Herbert Marcuses description in One Dimensional Man. He said democracy under capitalism gives the appearance of choice (e.g. Liberal or Labor) but in fact excludes any real choices that threaten the status quo (the Greens get almost no positive coverage in the privately owned mainstream media; social movements self-censor around politics).
3.'If we allow you to have a stall at our [insert here: ecofair, farmers market, street party etc], then we will have to invite the Liberal Party and how would that look?
Actually, yes, invite the Liberal Party. If they chose to come, it would do them good to have conversations with people who care about their childrens future, who know you cant eat coal on a dead planet.
4.'We dont want the Greens to swamp our [insert here: biggest door knock ever, day of action] and put people from other parties off joining us.
It was suggested to me in the meetings preparing for the Perth Peoples Climate March that the Greens shouldnt all march together in the Green block (which stood for saving the environment) but disperse ourselves throughout the other coloured blocks, given we cared about so many issues, like renewable energy, just job transitions, etc. Yes, we know climate disruption underpins everything. But why the anxiety about 60 Greens marching together? Why the desire to make us invisible?
I dont really have a satisfactory answer to why politics is a dirty word in Australia or why the Greens are kept at arms length by the progressive social movements we seek to embrace. I realise that not everyone sees legislative change as crucial element to creating a fair and safe world. But I cannot fathom why organisations and individuals cannot come out in proud support, if not of us as a party, at least of our policies that they also embrace, chiding and encouraging the other parties to adopt the same policies.
We will achieve our shared vision faster if we dont refuse to acknowledge fellow travellers on the same journey as us.
Photo: Large Greens contingent marching together in the Green block at the Peoples Climate March 29 November 2015. Andrew Beaton