Comment by Barrie Griffiths
"We want to create a radical movement that seeks to change the system, not patch it up; that offers a positive, constructive vision of an alternative, rather than simply complaints to ruling elites to make some reforms ..." (US Green Committees of Correspondence, 1987).
Recent proposals for a national green party are a worry. Anticipated for some time by Graham Richardson, adept at handling peak environment groups, the proposal was put to the Ecopolitics Conference last month by imported prominent green Jonathan Porritt, in support of Bob Brown and Janet Powell.
Urging his brand of "shuffling gradualism", Porritt made unfortunate remarks about greens totally dissociating themselves from the radical left, "getting into the workings of government at every point", using "acceptable rational market mechanisms, economic tools".
Brown is talking about forming a national party and then merging with the Democrats. He didn't say what mandate he, and whoever else is involved in these discussions, feel they have to speak or act on behalf of whom.
A very significant percentage of those who could be counted on to support a third force would be alienated by an initiative from a few prominent "green politicians" towards a centralised structure; many others by the perceived exclusive emphasis on green issues, by the very name, by the lack even of consultation, let alone participation, in the process from the outset.
The general public's concern about environment and social issues has been accompanied by a better understanding of the interconnectedness of "issues" represented by the European and Australian greens. Nevertheless "green" is still widely perceived as a single issue, still carries a suggestion of naivete.
This proposal for a green party is, for a start, too narrow and limited. An initiative coming from environment group leaders, focussing especially on "green" issues, calling itself "green", associating itself publicly with the Democrats and dissociating itself from those termed radical, of the left etc, is as if calculated to fall short of the broad-based support needed for an effective third political force.
Environment groups and the Democrats working closely together politically is a good first step, if seen as a prelude to involvement in a broader third political force. The association of the people and organisations making up this force cannot be that of members of a political party. Something less constricting and more broadly inclusive is required.
Participation needs to be focussed on what we're all in agreement about; the attempt to form a structured political party and constitution would tend to focus on differences.
Those associated publicly with the new political grouping should reflect the spectrum of environment, social action, left political, peace/anti-nuclear, Aboriginal and other movements. The sincerity and integrity of prominent "greens" like Bob Brown, Peter Garrett, and others such as Helen Caldicott and Janet Powell and whoever else may be involved in these current discussions, may be widely respected, but they are not an appropriate group to reflect this diversity.
People active in the major environment groups are accustomed to working within centralised hierarchical structures, and to processes by which a few make decisions and take initiatives in the name of a largely unconsulted membership and supporters amongst the general public.
We can see the effects of such an approach in the workings of the political and economic system we recognise must be radically altered. We should of course use those truly democratic processes we would wish to see in place, and a new national party resulting from the initiative of a few prominent "green politicians" and groups they purport to represent certainly isn't doing that.
"If the national policies and agreements of a grassroots movement are really going to be decisions made by the grassroots membership, then a national convention or congress for the purpose of making those kinds of decisions would have to be made up of mandated representatives from local groups. Whatever proposals were to be considered by such a meeting would have to originate from, circulate among, and be discussed beforehand by the local groups ..." (US Committees of Correspondence).
Jeff Lambert from the Wilderness Society envisages something like a decade to establish a national green party structure. Surely it would be a ludicrous waste of resources to labour away at a unified national party structure and organisation.
It does take time to form the living connections of a strong movement broadly entrenched in local and regional associations; but after all, this has been happening since the '70s, and current levels of awareness and concern about environmental and social ills, cynicism about our politicians, the banks, etc, represent an opportunity for something approaching the "quantum leap" Porritt roundly dismisses as impossible.
What is required of this third force is that it be broad enough and organised enough, through a massive communication/consultation process, to force proposals for quota-preferential voting to be added to the forthcoming federal referendum; with such a voting system, an association of third force candidates could win enough seats to outnumber the major parties.
A move to establish a centralised party structure paying lip-service to grassroots consultation would be a disaster. Bob Brown suggests views be sent to him to be fed into these current discussions. Until we have more satisfactory mechanisms, I hope he gets lots of feedback.
Barrie Griffiths is a member of the Green Alliance Network, an informal network based in Singleton NSW, and editor of its newsletter.