COMMENT BY PAUL BENEDEK
SYDNEY — Over the last few months a campaign has been waged by some members of Sydney's Refugee Action Collective to convert RAC into an exclusive, undemocratic, conservative organisation. This has included running a smear campaign against collective members who want it to be open, democratically organised and activist.
RAC, which was formed in mid-2000, includes individual refugees and refugee rights supporters and members of the International Federation of Iraqi/Iranian Refugees (IFIR), the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP), the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) and Amnesty International.
RAC adopted demands that the government end its racist scapegoating of refugees, abolish mandatory detention and close the detention centres, grant refugees full rights and abolish temporary visas, and fund services for refugees rather than detention centres.
These demands, while directed at the Coalition government, also confront the Labor Party which, while in government, implemented the mandatory detention of asylum seekers and, while in "opposition", has supported the Coalition's attacks on refugee rights.
Throughout 2000, RAC organised public actions in support of these demands, including a 1000-strong march on the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre and smaller pickets of immigration minister Philip Ruddock's "community consultations". The organisation of public opposition to Australia's racist anti-refugee policies was an important development.
Smear campaign
However, in late 2000, Maqsood Alshams and Cyrus Sarang, two very active members of RAC who are former detainees, egged on by pro-ALP and anti-socialist activists, initiated a smear campaign against socialists in RAC. Members of the DSP and the IFIR, the staunchest defenders of an open, democratic collective, were targeted.
Alshams and Sarang, claiming to be speaking for all refugees and asylum seekers, argued that RAC should be free of "politics" and "political groups".
The push to rid RAC of socialists, in particular those who criticise the ALP's racist policies as well as the government's, was aimed at transforming RAC into a more "respectable", controllable and narrower organisation. One of the instigators of the anti-socialist campaign admitted that he was advised to "cleanse RAC of socialists" if he wanted RAC to "get anywhere".
In a message posted to RAC's email list on December 12, Alshams said "I've duly carried some consultation with several migrant community organisations, State President of the AIA and a few prominent human rights defenders including the former Human Rights Commissioner Mr Chris Sidoti ... they are ready to extend their best support to our activities provided we are in a position to reform RAC as a political influence-free platform."
In a reply on the email list, the DSP's Simon Tayler asked "I wonder if you could clarify exactly what is included in the 'reforms' of RAC that Mr Sidoti et al require? ... does that mean that RAC now has to exclude all political groups from itself? Does it mean that it has to exclude all people with political opinions, so that we can be sure that no other agendas will threaten RAC's 'political platform-free' position? Does it mean that RAC itself will not be able to adopt political platforms (for example, criticising the immigration policies of the Liberal Party and the ALP)?"
This is not the first time that conservative forces have offered to "help" campaign groups on the condition that they drop their sharpest criticisms of the status quo. Cooption is a well-worn tactic to demobilise social movements and has been especially well used in Australia by the ALP.
The debate came to a head at the December 17 RAC meeting, at which Alshams and Sarang put forward a "charter" which would dramatically alter RAC's functioning. It included the specification: "The Collective will have two types of membership: Members and Associate Members. Only former detainees, asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants will have the right to vote. All others will be considered Associate Members, and have no voting rights.
"Only Members of the Collective will decide the future activities and movement of the collective. Political groups in the Collective will only be able to support and contribute to the activities decided upon and directed by the Collective ...
"Membership of the Collective will be free to all Members. Associate Members may join by paying an annual subscription of $100 (group/party) or $50 (individual) ... The application is subject to approval by a majority vote of the members of the Collective."
Members of the IFIR, themselves refugees, angrily responded that dividing RAC members on the basis of citizenship status was playing the government's racist game. They argued that it was crucial to build a strong movement and that meant including everyone who supports refugee rights and is willing to fight for them. If RAC restricted decision-making to a small subgroup, they argued, the lack of democracy would discourage involvement in RAC and weaken the campaign.
DSP members in RAC also argued that the proposal was about replacing the democratic control of RAC with control by a couple of activists. They argued that campaign democracy must be staunchly defended if the large, active movement that is needed to win RAC's demands is to be built.
Making RAC more exclusive and less democratic, they said, would enable conservative forces such as the ALP to more easily influence the weakened collective and movement.
Open or exclusive?
The IFIR and DSP proposed instead that RAC membership remain open to everyone who agrees with RAC's demands and works to implement them. They proposed that all RAC members' views be respected, that all members have the right to put forward proposals and that all decisions be made by majority rule.
The anti-democracy group was a small minority within RAC and would have been politically isolated if their politics had been challenged by all radical forces in the collective. Instead, some student activists and members of the ISO in RAC gave tacit (sometimes direct) succour to them.
Former Sydney University Student Representative Council president Natasha Verco openly supported the anti-democratic proposal, arguing that any idea of or behaviour by refugees in RAC was acceptable on the grounds that they are refugees, ignoring the fact that the IFIR members, also refugees, opposed the anti-democratic proposal.
The ISO members proclaimed support for democratic decision-making and an open collective, but in practice supported the anti-democratic group. Their refusal to vote for the democratic principles put forward by the IFIR and DSP made it clear that they are not serious about building a broad, open collective.
The ISO seems prepared to accept any idea or behaviour from people they think will give RAC "credibility", regardless of the damage this behaviour is doing to the refugee rights movement.
For example, after RAC unanimously endorsed a policy designed to end unproductive mud-slinging on the RAC email list, the ISO supported Sarang, whose disregard for RAC decisions and hostility to the DSP was already clear, to be the email list moderator. The email list mud-slinging did not stop and in December the email list was shut down and replaced by a new, unauthorised one which excludes DSP, IFIR and other RAC members who opposed the Sarang-Alshams proposal. The moderators of the unauthorised email list include Sarang and ISO member Brian Webb.
Meanwhile, in the last two months, dozens of refugees have drowned off Australia's coast, Ruddock has been touring the world attempting to intimidate potential asylum-seekers, and the atrocious conditions in the detention centres have been further exposed. Apart from some media work, there has been little public response from RAC.
An important lesson to be drawn from the tragic demise of RAC is that, as progressive forces grow and present an increasing threat to the status quo, defenders of the status quo will escalate their attempts to coopt and discredit that opposition.
Campaigns that maintain their political independence from the major parties will pay a price, including exclusion from government funding and censorship by and vilification in the establishment media. But by organising openly and democratically, by actively involving more and more people, they will have access to the only force that can win real and lasting change: people's power.
As the major parties' attacks on refugees and asylum seekers rain down harder, all progressive individuals and groups will be forced to take a stand: do they submit to the "advice" of those trying to prevent any fundamental change to the status quo, or do they join the side of those who aim to radically change the laws, party policies and popular ideas that relegate refugees and asylum seekers to "criminals" without rights?
The DSP will continue to advocate the latter and actively campaign for equality for all people in Australia and all those who want to live here.
[Paul Benedek is the secretary of the DSP's Western Sydney branch and a former member of RAC.]