2025-11-07
Are Greens’ Party Members idealistic or pragmatic, or both simultaneously? May they need to compromise funding and actions in order to meet environmental and social justice policy objectives? Can closer collaboration with the ALP lead to government actions which fulfil the policies of each party, at least partly, while ensuring that the conservative coalition stays on the opposition benches? The ‘best’ should not be the enemy of the ‘good’. These questions seem useful for Greens Members to consider philosophically and from a practical perspective. They link to the article on ‘cognitive dissonance’ by Chris Johansen in this issue.
By Andrew Turk, Fremantle-Tangney Greens
The Greens Party can be represented as based on idealism, across the whole spectrum of political issues, with a concentration on the environment. This involves saving the Australian (and potentially the World) environment from further degradation by mining activities, expansion of urban areas, continuation of old-growth-logging and pollution of rivers and lakes. In recent years this topic has grown in importance by the almost universal recognition that man-made Global Warming will have catastrophic impacts unless all countries collaborate to greatly reduce the production of gasses which are causing this global problem.
In addition to this environmental emphasis, Green parties in many countries, including Australia, have also been front-runners in advocating governmental policies regarding a range of social justice issues, such as: understanding the impact of colonisation (as a process rather than an event) on Indigenous (First Nations) peoples and ways to address the ongoing associated racism and injustice; limiting the worst consequences of advanced capitalism (such as massive wealth inequality), for instance via an effective, efficient and equitable tax system; and the need for adequate and affordable housing and health systems.
Such social justice polices have brought the Greens into more direct competition with the Australia Labor Party (ALP), which has gradually moved from concentration on workers’ rights (wages, work-place safety, superannuation, etc.) to concern for many similar social justice policies of the Greens. It could be expected that the two traditionally left-of-centre parties would collaborate, given their joint opposition to the right-wing parties, which favour rampant capitalism and accumulation of more wealth by those who are already rich. That is, for advancement of the interests of the few, at the expense of the many less advantaged citizens, whose role is seen as working diligently to produce more wealth for the fortunate few. This is just the modern form of ‘serfdom’ or ‘slavery’, which established the fortunes of many families or companies who still seek to rule, even in a democracy.
The Liberal Party has remained fairly consistent in their policies, despite many personality-based and some ideological disagreements between their parliamentary members. They almost always oppose the policies advanced by both the ALP and the Greens. As recently as from the 1970s to 1990s, there were left and right-wing factions within the Liberal Party. However, these days, the National Party (formerly, and more appropriately, called the Country Party) in coalition with the Liberals, has taken over the role of the ultra-right wing of conservative politics. What was the left wing of the Liberal Party has been decimated, to become virtually non-existent.
During roughly the same period, and possibly in response to changes in the conservative parties, the ALP has become progressively more right-wing with that faction mostly winning the age-old battles about policies and reducing the (formerly strong) left-wing faction of the ALP to a minor rump. This can also be associated with the rise of ‘managerialism’ within the ALP. This is in line with all other aspects of Australian society; firstly capitalist enterprises, then government departments, then the universities, and finally political parties have been contaminated by ‘managerialism’.
In a sense, these developments over the last few decades in the ALP have benefited the Greens, as individual long-term ALP members (such as myself) have given up the cause of revitalising the left-wing ALP faction, resigned from the ALP and joined the Greens. This has turned the Greens, to some extent, into a substitute for the ALP left-wing faction. Many in the Greens would baulk at such a characterisation, claiming that they are a completely different sort of political movement, pursuing policies significantly more correct than those of the ALP.
Like all Green Parties across the globe, most Australian Greens members would claim adherence to a set of ideals covering the environment and social justice significantly different to those of the ALP, being more ethical and practical. Like many other Labor parties overseas, the ALP cannot completely shake-off its union heritage and ‘Machiavellian’ internal processes.
In comparison, a sense of idealism has been seen as a necessary ingredient for a Greens party. Its members believe that they know what should be done in any policy area and are opposed to any watering-down of such ideals. However, many Greens oppose the label of ‘idealism’, stating, for instance, that their policies are always properly costed and practical. However, those Greens policies which tend to be published in the mass media, and attract the attention of the general public, usually demand more extreme measures regarding any topic. For instance, to help stop ‘global warming’, there should be immediate changes in electricity production to involve no coal or gas-powered facilities and only wind and solar electricity production. This has usually caused Greens to be opposed-to, rather than collaborative-with, the ALP, who often have policies for changes in the same direction, but more slowly. The ALP claims their policies are less extreme and hence more achievable, given the complex overall raft of policy actions needed to be performed by government, yet possible within the acceptable levels of taxation or other income.
Of course, not all Greens members favour extreme policies and many official policies are well costed and achievable. However, an honest assessment is that the Greens are, almost by definition, most likely to remain a small party with strong, idealist policies, which they fight for tooth-and-nail, even if it makes them less electable. Hence, except in some Australian State or Local Governments, the Greens usually wield little governmental power, except possibly in the upper house (where one exists), where the voting system is more kind to the Greens. So far, in general, Greens have chosen ‘purity’ over ‘power’, because that is what they generally believe is the ethical position.
There has been increasing difficulty for Australian Greens candidates to win House of Representative seats (as against Senate seats) in the Federal Government. Hence, perhaps it is time to reconsider the traditional usually fairly idealistic policy positions (in comparison to other political parties) and to become more pragmatic. This may reduce ‘cognitive dissonance’, both between competing areas of political need and comparing policies with actions.
Pragmatism may be defined as “an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application” (https://www.google.com/search). That is, the "best" should not be the enemy of the 'good', especially when the ‘best’ is very clearly almost unattainable (given the general opinions of voters), whereas the ‘good’ is likely to be achieved. This approach to Greens’ policy development and political manoeuvring would entail more co-operation with the ALP. This could perhaps be considered a more ethical approach through adopting policies that are more in-line-with the opinions of the voters. This approach to Greens policy and political manoeuvring would entail more cooperation with the ALP. In a sense, this is a more ethical approach than always fighting for the ‘best’ policy (as per the reasoning of Greens Members) but adopting a policy that is more in-line-with the opinions of the voters.
Of course, ideally, over time, the general voting population will become better educated and informed of the realities of our lives and the World (e.g. re Global Warming) so that the ‘public opinion’ becomes increasingly closer to that of the Greens. In this hoped-for future, the Greens will be the dominant party in all Federal and State Australian governments. I hope I am still alive to see that day. In the meantime, I would like Greens Members to open their minds for a more pragmatic approach.
Australia, as a political entity at this time in history, is not unique. Hence, in recent times, especially in those countries in Europe which favour less extreme capitalism and more social justice, the collaboration between ‘Red’ (workers) and ‘Green’ (environment) political parties has included forming a coalition government. This is usually only after any given election, but sometimes may be flagged beforehand. Perhaps it is time for Australian Greens to consider how they might negotiate terms for a formal coalition with the ALP. This may not be viable now but could be in the future. Such a coalition would probably involve not competing with each other in some, or most, or even all, seats at State or Federal government elections. Perhaps it could begin with a less formal and demanding collaboration, which may, or may not, lead to a formal coalition. At least it could lessen the expenditure of funding and energy fighting each other rather than the main enemy; the right-wing coalition.
This would not prevent the Greens from advocating what they see as the best policies, while facilitating the ALP (as their senior governmental partner) to implement less perfect, but still useful, policies across a broad spectrum of environmental and social justice topics. The current (October/November 2025) political situation regarding the revision of the Federal Environment Policy involves the ALP negotiating with the Greens and the conservative Coalition regarding getting the numbers to pass its new bill through the Senate. This is of some small value to the Greens but it seems more likely that the ALP will compromise with the right-wing Coalition. Perhaps, they would be inclined to agree with a more Greens position, if they were part of a Red/Green government.
It may be useful to at least start a discussion about this matter. This involves both philosophical aspects and pragmatic implementation possibilities across a wide range of policies. It is a fundamental question with respect to the future of the Greens Party. In my opinion, it is vitally important that its members confront this possibility in an open, logical and ethical way.
Header photo: Page 789, Munsey's Magazine, 1909: story "The higher pragmatism" Extract of illustration from scan. Author O. Henry, illustrator Gordon Hope Grant. Public Domain
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]