By Dick Nichols
The Australian voter who is heartily fed up with Labor and knows that Hewson and Co will be worse has another problem — which of the "third parties" should be trusted with his or her vote on March 13?
The third party marketplace is pretty bewildering. Here is Green product, Democrat product, Democratic Socialist product, Rainbow Alliance product and independent product, all with remarkably similar labels — all against "economic rationalism", all for ecologically sustainable development, all for social justice, all opposed to the bipartisan consensus in foreign policy. Little wonder the third party customer is confused.
Of course, the more discerning shopper will detect some product differentiation: maybe noticing the silence of some Greens on immigration and their conscience vote on abortion; or wondering why everyone (and not just the rich) should pay for job creation (as with the Democrats' proposed 1.25% income tax surcharge); or sceptical about the benefits of repeating at a federal level the Tasmanian Labor-Green Accord (as floated by Bob Brown).
But much greater differences than these existed among the parties that now form New Zealand's Alliance — the "third force" that triumphed in the 1992 municipal elections and is now challenging Labour and National in the polls. The NZ Alliance could have gone aground on issues like Maori fishing rights, Pacific islander immigration, repurchase by the state of privatised state enterprises, taxation, industrial relations and a host of others.
It didn't. In 1991 NewLabour (with its working class base), the Greens, the Maori rights party Mana Motuhake, the Democrats (with roots in small business) and the Liberals (representing sections of the rural community) came together into a five-party "red-green" coalition giving hope to all New Zealanders who have suffered at the hands of Labour and National.
The Alliance won so much support in the 1992 municipal elections that it now represents a serious obstacle to the plans of the Bolger government to privatise the country's ports (contrast this with the ease with which Canberra continues to privatise government assets). It now registers around 30% in the polls, sometimes heading both Labour and National.
Australia, too, urgently needs a similar third force. None of the existing third parties can fill the gap, and without such a coalition each new election will be a gruelling exercise in working out whether we hate and distrust Labor or the Coalition least. With such an alliance, the Australian political agenda can begin to be transformed.
How can it start to emerge? Its embryo can be a simple arrangement to have one "third party" candidate stand in each electorate, as happened in some seats in the recent Queensland state election. Or an which the constituent parties still run under their own names, as in the 1991 Brisbane City Council elections. In both cases the progressive vote was maximised.
Out of such agreements a stronger type of coalition can grow, based on serious and consistent work on policy and the elaboration of democratic decision-making structures.
What obstacles have to be overcome to begin this process of coalition-building? Frankly, quite a few.
There's a tendency on the part of some Democrats to view themselves as the first among equals because they already have members of parliament. How different the attitude of NewLabour in New Zealand, which, while having leader Jim Anderton in parliament, dealt with all potential components of the future Alliance on equal terms.
There's the problem that, for some, the real glittering prize is not a broad new progressive coalition but a little Senate seat, which 6-8% of the primary vote should be just enough to win.
Such an attitude negates the entire purpose of a new electoral coalition. Indeed, if we are serious about our aims of social justice and saving the environment, we won't need just any sort of third electoral force; we need that force to embody a new kind of politics, one that speaks out for and is accountable to all progressive struggles against the status quo.
Then there's the refusal of some aspirants on the third party scene to put politics first. For example, a few allow themselves to be swayed by the prejudices of the old left, or seek to exclude people who don't meet some criterion of "respectability". In short, they set up non-political criteria as to those they will and won't have discussions with. (A related affliction is the phobia that grips some Greens whenever the word "socialism" is mentioned.)
Lastly (and always with us) is the baggage of past fights and divisions, which the seriousness of the present crisis should persuade everyone to keep in proportion.
I don't note these problems in any spirit of point-scoring. Rather, they should help us think about what approach needs to be observed if a red-green alliance worthy of the name is to get off the ground in this country.
Firstly, we need some genuine, thoughtful discussion. Democrats, Greens, Democratic Socialists and the Rainbow Alliance have all been involved in elaborating policy over recent years, but there has been precious little cross-fertilisation and debate. Even at this late stage in the present campaign, it would be enlightening for interested voters if forums of alternative candidates could be held, allowing a more serious and penetrating discussion than your standard "meet-the-candidate" gabfest.
Secondly, how about some discussion before elections of the eed approach, whatever form this may ultimately take?
Lastly, we need closer collaboration in fighting the appalling results of Labor and Liberal in power — in opposing privatisation, unemployment and their next war moves.
No realistic person will pretend that the construction of a coalition will be an easy and painless affair. It wasn't in New Zealand, where a small section of the Greens felt that they'd rather ally with Labour and split from the process.
The questions remain, however. After this election nothing much will change, no matter whether Hewson or Keating is incumbent in the Lodge. So, can we afford not to build an Australian red-green coalition? And if not now, when?l
[Dick Nichols is an organiser with the Democratic Socialist Electoral League.]