Vote for whomever is listening!
Guest post: Damien Norris
Elections are looming. Will we want more of the same or do we feel like a change? They say a change is as good as a holiday however, like our ever-reduced levels of annual leave, a governmental ‘change’ may not leave us any more refreshed.
How often have you heard, “I couldn’t stand another term of Howard but I don’t think Latham is any better?” The same sentiments, although with different actors, are echoed in the USA and UK. However, at least in the USA the choice is becoming obvious. That is, despite President Bush’s confidence that “more and more of our [US] imports are coming from overseas”, the public may be a touch edgy with the President’s recent admission that personnel on the US payroll “never stop thinking about ways to harm our country.” [1]
Nevertheless, we appear to be about to vote against a candidate rather than for one. Why is this? One answer is that it appears that within all three governments [USA, UK & Aust] the major political parties are heeding an unofficial agenda of agreement on most —- if not all — significant areas of policy. [2]
In Australia, both governments have deemed it wise to shave public spending [Read: Neo-liberalism secures ever increasing GDP] by outsourcing or privatising the provision of essential services: unemployment, health, education, disability services, aged care, etc.
Indeed, when we investigate the differences between Labor and Liberal on: the East Timor Gap issue, the privatisation of education, changes to Medicare, ‘Treaty’, the fate of refugees during and after Tampa, AUSFTA, the War on Iraq, we find differences in degree, not in kind.
Is this concerning for a vibrant democracy. You bet! By virtue of BIG party alignment much of the public space has been ‘de-politicised’. According to Gary Johns of the Institute of Public Affairs, neo-Liberalism demands it: “‘a cardinal tenet of liberalism is to keep democracy in its place, to regard it as an activity of limited application’. The task of the state is ‘depoliticise much of life, make it less amenable to public dispute’”. [3] Given this, do we even have a democracy? I guess this depends on what is meant by ‘democracy’.
Now ask yourself, ‘If the public space has been depoliticise? And the services looking after Australia’s majority are no longer the formal responsibility of government? Then who, in government, is in a position to hear the people? Disturbing. Was this why neither party fully heard the majority [70%] of Australians say ‘Not in our name’ to war in Iraq?
Fortunately, there are those who still hear the concerns of Australians and will lobby government on their behalf: the ‘privatised’ suppliers of services and NGOs. But, and this is a BIG ‘BUT’, not for much longer.
Recently, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe announced that NGOs “must work for the betterment of [the] country and not against it … We cannot allow them to be … instruments of … interference in our national affairs”. [4] Currently legislation is being drawn up to curtail the work of charities and ban human rights work. What this means is that any dissent, local or foreign, will be suppressed.
In Australia, Peter Costello announced plans [2003] to cancel the tax deductibility status of NGOs who are ‘attempting to change the law or government policy’. What this means is that providers for Australia’s 3 million poor —- organizations who were once governmental agencies and who fought for the disenfranchised — could only fight against the causes of poverty [i.e., government policy] at the expense of their tax deductibility status. [5] Today, even funding given to ACOSS [Australian Council of Social Services] has become dependent upon them providing government with any studies or submissions two weeks in advance of release and they must also give 24 hours notice of media releases. [6]
As yet, Costello has not finalised the definition of ‘charities’. Nevertheless many NGOs are self-silencing and preparing for the worst. What is certain is that if Costello gets his way, the cry of the poor, currently clamorous, will become a distant whisper; unheard, unseen, forgotten. What many Australians will then have to endure is a system even Mugabe would endorse; can you imagine!
What is also certain is that this initiative is currently an entirely Liberal affair. Hmmm, vote Labor?
1. David Teather, Bush’s campaign trail gaffe, Guardian Weekly, August 13-19, 2004. [back]
2. George Monboit, A threat to democracy, Guardian Weekly, August 13-19, 2004. [back]
3. Margo Kingston, Not Happy John: defending our democracy (Penguin, Victoria, 2004), p. 262. [back]
4. Finance Notes, Guardian Weekly, August 13-19, 2004. [back]
5. Margo Kingston, ibid, p. 272. [back]
6. Margo Kingston, ibid, p. 270. [back]
This elegantly describes the problem, but the problem is well known. A lot of people are feeling disenfranchised by the current state of politics. What do we do to fix it? Can it be fixed? Do we need grass-roots political action? or just voting for independent candidates? And how do you do anything when both major parties promise voters no more commitment than apathy?
I don’t mean to be nit-picky.. I really agree but I find the solutions harder to come across.
If you want to change the world, you need to get involved at every level, grass-roots, political parties, parliamentary, business lobbying, etc.
Grass-roots alone won’t change things (since governments and business are quite prepared to ignore mass protests or suppress them), unless supported by other actions at other levels.