The ALP's centenary
By Ian Alexander
In this, the Australian Labor Party's centenary year, the party has been racked by internal controversy and is on the nose in many parts of its former heartland. This is especially ironic in view of the party's origins in the labour disputes of 1890.
Today, the party still lays claim to being an open and democratic organisation dedicated to the goal of equality and the betterment of conditions for ordinary Australians. Unfortunately, the reality is often very different, as the experience of Labor in government during the 1980s shows.
In government, the party has historically been more conservative than its platform promises, with some notable short exceptions such as the Whitlam years. Sure, the Australian electorate is not exactly enamoured with radical polices, but in my view many (including a sizeable proportion of Labor's constituency) still prefer a government that is true to its principles than one which is so pragmatic that it doesn't appear to have any! Certainly that is the message of the feedback I have had since resigning from the ALP in the WA parliament to sit as a Labour Independent.
As a backbencher in the state ALP government, I found the parliamentary Labor Party to be — in many ways — the antithesis of democracy. It acted in a hierarchical, authoritarian and elitist manner. Cabinet government (and often a clique within cabinet) was the order of the day, with caucus, supposedly the democratic decision-making forum for the government, reduced to a mere rubber stamp. Reversal of cabinet decisions was almost unheard of, even when they flew in the face of party platform (as with the decision to grant 150 hectares of prime real estate to the proposed Notre Dame University, or to make way for mining in national parks). A right-wing member of caucus once said to me after a colleague and I dared to criticise in public a few decisions of this sort : "You two are just bloody trouble-makers. You should realise that a backbencher's job is to support the government whether they are right or wrong!"
It is also regarded as heresy — at least at state level — to speak out against any government decision, even at party meetings. Such heresy was often reported back by party hacks to premier's level, and attacks followed in caucus. Caucus thus acted like a secret society. This was allegedly in the name of protection from the opposition — but opposition meant those within the party (and there still are a few!) committed to proper communication with and representation of rank-and-file party views.
In this environment, careerists and opportunists thrive and the parliamentary party becomes a club for the advancement of individuals rather than a vehicle for implementation of Labor policies.
In any case, the party's commitment to socialism has gradually been watered down over the years, and many in caucus disavow any pretense of a socialist objective.
"Social justice" became the new buzz word, but that concept can be interpreted in any number of ways. In the minds of many, it appears to mean little more than the old liberal concept of equal opportunity. Concepts such as worker-control, people's ownership and community-based decision making seemed to be irrelevant, even dangerous. Cabinet became locked into a management-oriented approach.
In this context the conclusion has to be that any real progress towards democratic socialism cannot come from within a party that only 100 years ago set out on that path.
Perhaps Marx and Engels' summation of democratic governments in 19th century capitalist Europe as mere "committees of management for the bourgeoisie" applies equally to Labor governments over a century later?
Dr Ian Alexander is MLA for Perth.