By Lisa Macdonald
Over the last fortnight, green and left activists who do not have access to electronic mail have missed a heated but politically interesting discussion which has taken place on the Pegasus network.
The debate, between Ron Harris from the Queensland Green Party and Greg Sargent, secretary of the Cairns branch of the Wilderness Society, is focused on the decisions and conduct of the Green Party versus the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society and the Wilderness Society (TWS) during the Queensland elections.
Much of the language of the debate is personalised and emotional, each side accusing the other of various breaches of green principles. For example, claims by Sargent in his first posting on July 21 that TWS volunteers on polling booths were "harassed and subject to racist and sexist abuse by a bizarre cooperative effort between Green Party bods and the Coalition" were followed by counter-claims by Harris on July 24 that Green Party volunteers at polling booths "complained of forceful behaviour from the ALP staffers handing out the phoney [TWS/ACF/ARCS-produced] how-to-vote cards".
In the same posting, Harris "explains" the peak environment bodies' decision to support the ALP in the elections in terms of an "undenied" rumour that ACF executive director Tricia Caswell "is seeking ALP Senate preselection". Sargent, on August 2, compares the rumour to one that "Tim Fisher is a Martian transvestite".
Both Harris and Sargent accuse each other's organisations of containing "power elites" which "stitch up a national political agenda above adherence to grassroots democracy". Both maintain that the other's how-to-vote cards were decided without consulting their respective memberships. Sargent further accuses the Green Party of "clumsy attempts to stack TWS branches".
Regardless of the truth or otherwise of such accusations, the issues raised are much larger and extend far beyond Queensland's borders. It is discussion long overdue.
Power or issues?
Sargent argued on July 21 that, in failing to consistently direct preferences to Labor in Queensland, the Green Party was giving "priority to the gaining and maintenance of political power over environmental issues". Therefore, he says, "they cannot expect unanimous support from the movement. They certainly cannot lay [claim to] sole ownership of a word, or a colour, used to describe us all."
Sargent continues: "If the Green Party wishes to maintain independence, then there must be recognition of the right of the movement to campaign as and where they see fit on issues of concern to them". He concludes by suggesting: "Perhaps it is time to either reconsider the relationship between the movement and the party that describes itself as green, or start treating the Greens as yet another political power structure that must be begged, bent or broken as circumstances require".
Replying, Harris draws an analogy between the trade union and environment movements, asking Sargent: "The ALP derives grassroots support from the trade union movement, but it doesn't do everything the trade unions want. The unions accept that there are larger pictures and other realities involved. Why can't you accept that?"
What Harris does not go on to elaborate, and what the leaderships of both trade union and environment movements do not like raised, is that the ALP in government has decimated the union movement while enjoying its support. The acceptance by union leaders of the ALP's "larger picture", their willingness to compromise on the interests and needs of their members in the name of pragmatism, has allowed workers' rights and living standards to be slashed in the 12 years of the Accord.
The answer to Harris's question, then, is that neither the trade union nor the environment movement can accept such a relationship with the ALP, or any other party, including the Greens, if it is to win its demands.
Lobbying
Harris argues that a "reasonable arrangement [that] ... seems to work well in other countries" would be for the movements to "remain experts at begging crumbs from governments in their own special interest areas and leave the Green Party to be experts in political manoeuvrings". This approach is doubly wrong.
The aims of peace, democracy, social justice and environmental sustainability are hardly compatible with "political manoeuvring". And without a mass base in the movements, the Greens cannot aspire to more than a minor role in government. The ALP developed as a major political party on the foundation of a powerful mass workers' movement. And as we are seeing today, it will lose that power as it loses its traditional base.
Further, the environment movement, like all other progressive social movements, cannot succeed in its goals if it limits its activities to lobbying. Whether Labor, Liberal or National, Australian governments represent and protect big business interests, which are antithetical to environmental protection. No amount of lobbying has ever "bent or broken a political power structure". It has only ever won "crumbs".
Sargent is correct to assert the right of the movements to express their views via how-to-votes at elections. As advocates of grassroots democracy, Green parties should accept and defend this right. Their task then becomes to win the movement's electoral support through helping to build it and by representing its interest in parliament.
The bottom line is that if they choose to play the parliamentary game as the path to power, the Greens then have to play by its rules, including beating the ALP at its own dirty game.
Nevertheless, the environment movement's right to form, hold and advocate green views that are different from those of Green parties only has any meaning and credibility in so far as the movement is both democratic and independent of all parliamentary parties, including the ALP.
Real independence
From this flows the second fundamental question raised in the Queensland debate, that of the relationship between green activists and the major political parties, both within and beyond parliament.
The Queensland Greens' decision to direct preferences in some seats to the Nationals does, as Sargent maintains, reflect "a group that calls itself a green party but is in reality a coalition of ... people who sometimes act locally but have forgotten how to think globally". Preference deals with the big players in parliament are just another version of lobbying, and any assistance the Greens give to the most conservative forces in Australian politics constitutes a direct attack on green values, goals and campaigns.
But for Sargent then to argue that the peak environment bodies were "not handing out how-to-votes for any political party", but were doing it for "Cape York, land justice for Aboriginal people and an end to woodchipping ..." is dishonest.
An honest and independent position which puts Labor before the Coalition must acknowledge that the ALP breaks election promises just as frequently as the opposition; that the ALP's environmental policies and record have been disastrous, albeit marginally better than the Coalition's; and that, in the absence of an alternative party likely to form government, the ALP is only the lesser evil option.
Most importantly, if such a position were put by a truly independent environment movement, it would be accompanied by active support for the building of a genuine pro-environment alternative to Labor and the Coalition. Whether or not that is or might begin as the Green Party is a judgment to be made democratically by the movement as a whole, based on the Greens' ideas, methods and performance.
To the extent that this party develops a narrow, opportunistic (electoralist) perspective and develops in a rightward political direction, it will become a step backwards.
In their debate about whether electoral support for the ALP or the Coalition is the right decision, both the Greens and the peak environment bodies are posing the wrong question. Both continue to be trapped in a lobbyist framework and as such are unable and/or unwilling to seriously challenge the two party system. Until they get out of this old political framework and strive to build a new party based on mass activity and grassroots democracy, important opportunities will continue to be missed.