2018-11-09
By Rob Delves, GI Co-editor
Democracy – or rather, the lack of it – has thrust itself onto centre stage. Immediately after the coup against Malcolm Turnbull, the Tangney Greens doorknocking team found doorstep conversation flowed more freely than normal. Nearly all of it was anger and disgust at the behaviour of our supposedly democratic leaders. It was probably the main reason for the huge swing against the Liberals in Wentworth,
Disgust at the recent self-indulgent shenanigans merely adds another reason that millions of people give when asked why they are losing faith in our democracy and our system of government. In many countries this despair has led to the election of the rightwing populist strongman who openly trashes many democratic norms – Trump, Erdogan, Duterte, Orban and Bolsonaro head the swelling ranks. Many on the Left believe that simply replacing these populists with familiar liberals like Hilary Clinton equals Problem Solved.
However, the problem is much deeper than that. The Greens have focused on getting big money out of politics as one important answer to the question “What’s Wrong with Democracy Today”? Arguing for strict caps and much greater transparency in political donations resonates with nearly everyone and should continue to be a major plank in our campaigning.
People understand that big money is corrupting our democracy. However, I’d like us to argue for something that is strongly related to the corrosive affect of big money, but much broader. Neoliberalism is the main reason for the weakening and thinning of our democracy. I think most people would agree that its main features are that markets know best and must be left free to determine how our economy and society will thrive – therefore we must have minimal regulation, low taxes, privatised public services and starve any that remain.
While Neoliberalism is content to tolerate elections, as long as the “right” candidates form government, it mounts a full frontal assault on genuine participatory democracy. Neoliberalism wants you alone and disconnected. Recall John Howard’s criticism of the excess of agitation by special groups, street protests, strike action. It was OK for Oxfam to raise money for overseas poor and for the Conservation Council to organise clean ups, but campaigning against the systems that created poverty, injustice and environmental destruction was Just Not On.
Howard’s splendid vision? An Australia Open for Business, “relaxed and comfortable,” where the individual was all that mattered, each individual focused on working hard and spending to support family, house and garden. Lots of watching sports and commercial TV light entertainment was to be encouraged as a reward for all your hard work, but the ABC was definitely the dangerously Biased Beast That Must be Starved. And of course, the focus of the most turbo-charged assault was participation in trade unions.
Two things happened – two inevitable consequences. Firstly, inequality soared: unjust, obscene, extreme inequality. Combined with the disruption of traditional secure work patterns and the erosion of welfare protections, raging inequality left millions marginalized, feeling irrelevant and angry. Secondly, there was a relentless decline of trust in democracy, especially mainstream political parties. The populist parties and demagogues exploited this vacuum, offering illusory simple solutions, usually based on the traditional authoritarian targeting of minority groups.
So, in my opinion, the real threat to democracy is neoliberalism and its inevitable inequality, not authoritarian populists. It’s interesting that the period that many regard as the high point of commitment to democracy was roughly between 1945 and 1980. It coincided with a time of much greater equality, much stronger role for government in ensuring welfare support, secure employment and affordable housing for all, mass membership of unions and high levels of participation in civil society organisations. In other words, everything that neoliberalism sought to disrupt and destroy. While the postwar years were certainly not even near the top of the Stairway to Heaven, they were many steps higher than where we are today.
Remember Bill Clinton’s famous “It’s the Economy, Stupid?” For the last 30+ years, it’s almost as if the economy, seen as being as business-friendly and internationally competitive as possible, has been the only thing that matters. Neoliberalism sets out to destroy citizen participation in decision-making, especially in economic matters, where the market must be left to determine the best outcomes. We don’t have any choices in these matters.
The Greens recognise that we’ve taken a wrong turn in failing to challenge the dominance of neoliberalism. We sum this up by stating that “We live in a society (with markets), not a market.” The Greens totally reject the mantra of “There Is No Alternative.” We champion citizen participation in the decision–making on all the issues that create the sort of country and society we want to be, based on consensus about our national goals and values. What levels of population growth are best? What balance do we want between public and private provision of health, education, transport, jobs and housing? Do we want Swedish or American style public services – and what is the fairest way to raise the revenue for them?
These are matters for democratic debate and decision-making. For example, The Greens’ contribution would be to argue that economic activity must respect two things. Firstly, our planetary boundaries, which set a ceiling we must not puncture. Secondly, a solid floor that ensures the “Enough” of a decent life for everyone. There are far too many gaps in the floor and holes punched through the ceiling.
Once these priorities are agreed, then there are important decisions to be made about the most efficient economic measures to deliver them.
In seeking to invigorate our democracy, we must also go hard at reducing inequality, because we know that people aren’t going to have any faith in a democratic system that delivers obscene levels of unjust inequality. We already have strong policies or are debating them: sharing work more equally, a job guarantee, generous income support for those between jobs or unable to find work, fairer taxation (especially of wealth), stronger public sector role in housing, health and education.
At the same time we should promote the various forms of participatory democracy, such as street protests, petitions, participatory budgeting in local councils, citizen-initiated referenda and town hall meetings ‒ maybe even plebiscites on Same Sex Marriage?
Header photo: Parliament House, Canberra. Credit: Andrea Schaffer, Sydney; Wikimedia Commons