Comment by Marit Hegge
Much has appeared in this paper over the last few months about the possible formation of a national Green Party. Most of it has inferred that the process is "top down", undemocratic and, at the worst, that its leading proposers are more interested in the business of creating power hierarchies and empires than building the green movement.
As one of those involved in the so-called "top down" process (in Queensland), it concerns me that, despite numerous mail-outs and circulation of organisers' phone numbers, consultation is still not viewed as having occurred by some correspondents to 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly.
I would question the stance of some of those who believe that they were cut out of the process. All that was required was a reply to a letter or a phone call to state their concerns. Several of the groups mailed to (including ACT Green Democratic Alliance and Victorian Green Alliance) in fact had redundant addresses and it took considerable effort to establish a new contact, which brings into question the level of activity of those groups.
The number of delegates to the August 17-18 Sydney greens conference was determined by feedback received from mail-outs, the history of electoral activism in each state and the population and electoral divisions.
A system based solely on existing registered groups would have created a situation totally weighted to NSW, with little or no representation for Queensland. The Victorian and South Australian delegations were small because they failed to respond to mail-outs and didn't have a lengthy history of green electoral participation. An allowance of 16 delegates for NSW as proposed by some NSW green groups, plus an unlimited number of observers because of venue location, could also hardly be called a fair system of representation.
As to the implications of power hierarchies, the original conveners of the process, especially Bob Brown, have stressed how important the participation of the grassroots activists is to the success of a party, and reiterated the need for regional autonomy to be built into a party constitution throughout the conference.
It would seem that a conflict has emerged between those who want a political party with proscription and those who want a looser network type structure which would also give scope for a greater socialist analysis of green politics, the latter having been largely supported by this paper.
This "split" could also be viewed as somewhat of an ideological struggle between the "green Greens" and the "socialist Greens". As a delegate to the Sydney conference on August 17-18, it became obvious to me that those groups most strongly opposed to the model of a Green Party, operating along similar lines to the British Green Party as proposed by Illawarra Greens spokesperson Steve Brigham, were those coming from a capital city base, with strong membership of the Democratic Socialist Party. Those most strongly supporting Steve's model were from those states and groups with a more decentralised and rural-based constituency, with a very small DSP component.
It was obvious before the conference that the opposing viewpoints were virtually impossible to reconcile. Hence the agreement prior to the conference that proscription of members of other political parties be a precondition for attendance at the conference.
Whatever the feelings are about the process by which agreement was reached, the point to remember is that many groups would have even not attended had this precondition not been reached. The fact that they agreed to a "sunset clause" was a credit to their preparedness to compromise.
Whether correct in their assumptions or not, there have been strong opinions expressed by a number of groups and individuals around the country that those groups with large DSP membership are acting in accordance with DSP policy and therefore are not truly capable of an independent and non-aligned point of view.
To have any one party dominating an organisation is seen as a situation which would hardly encourage the diversity and grassroots democracy which have been so much talked about from all quarters. Interestingly, at the conference observers from other parties (such as the Democrats or New Left Party) did not attend, nor did they attempt to have their members as delegates of the various groups in which they participate.
Understandably, those who wish for a loose network structure also feel somewhat aggrieved, especially those members of the DSP who have worked very hard to promote the group within which they operate. They will naturally interpret any moves by those who wish to assert the rights of individuals to form a party as being exclusive and "top down", when in actual fact most of these groups had extensive consultation with their membership and came to the conference carrying majority decisions from that membership.
Those groups who wish for a loose network also seemed unwilling to disrupt the obvious social and campaigning links they had established with members of other parties whilst operating within the network framework. This distress was obvious and lent an emotional edge to much of the proceedings in Sydney. Many of the comments in the August 28 issue of GLW came from those who
are promoting the loose network concept and the tone was hence emotional, defensive and somewhat recriminatory.
Those in other existing non-Green parties seem to overlook the fact that they can still form electoral coalitions and alliances with members of a national Green Party which proscribes. The Queensland Green Alliance is an example of how a short-term electoral coalition can work. Throughout that campaign, the differences and identity of the respective political parties were maintained.
Unfortunately members of the DSP misinterpreted a short-term coalition as the correct basis for a new political party, despite the other major parties and many individuals involved thinking otherwise. A meeting on June 16 of that grouping confirmed that Queensland Green Network was not the appropriate body to help form a new party, hence the Australian Greens Working Group (Queensland) was formed.
Much has been said about ownership of the name "green". It seems to relate very much to questions of ideology and policy and in fact its use may call for a total rethink. We are seeing a situation where we have Liberals, Labor and many inimical organisations calling themselves "green". Liberal ex-lord mayor of Brisbane Sally-Ann Atkinson was always drawing attention to how "green" she was, and just couldn't understand why the "greenies" didn't support her after all she claimed to have done for the environment. She has now moved on to employment in the corporate environmental lobby field.
The proposers of a loose network seem to believe that the diversity of opinions and positions which an "open door, all comers welcome" policy would bring will lead to a broader definition of green politics. It could also lead to a situation of watered-down policy, the inability ever to reach decisions and, taken to its logical conclusion, have membership including the "green" Liberals, Fred Nile "greens" and multinational corporation lobby groups keen to promote their environmental credentials.
Most Green parties and groupings around Australia have in their policy statement the four principles of the German Greens — a sustainable ecology; social and economic equality; participatory grassroots democracy; peace, non-violence and disarmament. Many groupings have adopted these principles out of expediency rather than conviction.
In particular, in relation to the principle of non-violence, it never ceases to amaze me that political parties such as DSP and the Socialist Party of Australia can agree to this principle when in "green" mode and yet support armed resistance as a means of social change.
The term "participatory grassroots democracy" signifies to me that decisions are made in a meeting or other process by a range of free-thinking individuals (who then may act as delegates), not by groups of people who already being committed to a party "line" vote as a bloc within another organisation's meetings. There are obvious fundamental anomalies in existence amongst those who call themselves "green", and amongst the groupings who see themselves as contenders for ownership of the name. It is not so much the name that is at stake but rather the ideological direction which green politics will take in this country.
A national Green Party with proscription would go a long way to clarify these anomalies. There would be no members of other political parties unsure about whether they were in "support non-violence" mode for this meeting and later on in the day at a different meeting supporting armed resistance. A forum would also exist where green activists who were truly committed to these four principles could have discussion and develop policy appropriate to their beliefs.
Those who wished to form socialist-based alliances would still be free to do so and hopefully would have enough confidence in their beliefs to stand up and be proud to be socialists, rather than hiding behind the Greens.