Popular Posts

Pageviews last month

Thursday, August 26, 2010

We didn’t get what we deserved By Fred Fuentes

Workers march in solidarity with Adelaide construction worker Ark Tribe facing jail for refusing to submit to interrogation under anti-worker laws kept in place by the ALP ; Sydney July 20, 2010. Photo by Peter Boyle.

Rather than getting the government we deserve, the August 21 federal election delivered an outcome the two old parties deserved.

With both Labor and the Coalition focusing on negative campaigning, sloganeering and scapegoating refugees and other minorities, an even larger number of voters decided to cast their vote for alternatives with some vision.

A hung parliament with the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate was only a partial reflection of this growing disenchantment with the two-party system.

Close to one in five voters opted to show their opposition to both Labor and Liberal by voting for other parties.

Importantly, 11.4% of voters looked towards the progressive alternative posed by the Greens in the lower house, with 14% in the Senate nationally.

In a fairer electoral system, based on proportional representation, the Greens would have won not one but 17 of the 150 seats up for grabs in the House of Representatives.

A further sign of discontent was an informal vote of 5.6%, unseen since 1987, and reaching up to 14% in migrant working class electorates in western Sydney. More than 20% did not even bother to register or turn up.

With 80% of votes counted, 40% of votes have not gone to either Labor or the Coalition.

Julia Gillard, stealing a quote from former US president Bill Clinton, sought to downplay the discontent with this line: “It’s going to take a little while to determine exactly what [the people have] said”. In fact, the vote and the major parties’ post-election claims for “legitimacy” show neither has a mandate.

The response from the corporate backers of these parties is also crystal clear.

Graham Bradley, president of the Business Council of Australia wrote in the August 23 Australian Financial Review that any minority government requiring the support of independents and minor parties represented a “danger” to the “bold reforms Australia needs”.

“Regardless who wins, it’s not good news for business at all”, said Myers chief executive Bernie Brooks.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Heather Ridout said that a hung parliament was a “worrying outcome for business” that could lead to “instability, uncertainty and short-termism in policy development”. What was crucial, above all else, she said, is that the independents commit themselves to “supporting stable government”.

The editorial in the same issue of AFR read: “Regardless of whether the Coalition’s Tony Abbott or Labor’s Julia Gillard leads it, this is the worst possible outcome for stable government and the unpopular economic reforms required to reinforce the Australian economy against another global recession, the expiry of the resources boom and the challenges of an ageing population.”

Big business’ concern is not whether Abbott or Gillard runs the government, because they know that both will run it in their interest. Their concern for “stability” is really about parliament and the two parties restoring legitimacy – critical if either are to be able push through unpopular attacks on working people.

Both parties agree, as their platforms indicate, that neo-liberal measures are becoming increasingly necessary as the global economic crisis continues. Australia is not immune either: its rising debt looks likely to rise further as the Chinese economy, which has buffered Australia for the crisis, starts to slip.

The election result also opens up more cracks in the hegemony exercised by the two old parties. Their ability, and that of the corporate media, to silence dissident voices will be much harder in this new framework.

But for different views to better represented, we need far reaching electoral reforms that better reflect the will of the people and ensure that every vote counts.

It is also necessary for the progressive social movements to build on the 1.2 million-strong vote for the Greens. Undoubtedly a significant proportion of the Green vote was a protest vote, particularly against the ever rightward shift of the ALP. But, for an increasing number it was a conscious vote for a new progressive alternative.

In Melbourne, the Greens won their second ever lower house seat in the face of a ferocious campaign by Labor and the cravenly pro-ALP union bureaucracy against one of the most pro-union candidates with a chance of winning a seat.

Importantly, unions such as the Victorian Electrical Trade Union broke with the ALP to come behind the Greens in the seat of Melbourne and the Victorian Senate.

This, together with the Greens managing to turn the inner west NSW seat of Grayndler from the second safest ALP seat into a marginal seat, is a powerful message to millions looking for an alternative to the two corporate parties.

This is particularly true for the remaining rank and file ALP members disgusted by the direction of the party and who realise that the reason for Labor’s crisis is a lot deeper than a few cabinet discussion leaks.

With NSW Labor so on the nose, the Greens have a real chance of winning lower house seats in the 2011 March state election.

How the Greens move now to continue to build a third force in politics will be crucial to converting protest votes into a serious and lasting “new movement” as Bob Brown put it on election night. We need a political force that can continue to weaken the monopoly of the two corporate parties and work with the social and trade union movements to bring about real change.

No comments: