BY ALISON DELLIT
Avoiding Pauline Hanson these days is an impossible task. Her face looms from the mainstream papers every day and then pops up again on the TV news at night. Her image is more prevelant than any other politician in the corporate media at the moment, even Prime Minister John Howard.
But of course, Hanson is the story of the moment. And the story is pretty simple — leading her party back from the brink of disaster, Hanson has captured the votes of those suffering under economic rationalism, and employed a clever preferences strategy to destroy the Coalition's chances of keeping government in the next elections.
There's only one problem with this story: it's not true.
Yes, it's true that in both the Western Australian and Queensland state elections, One Nation maintained its vote despite all their electoral troubles of the last few years. This has been largely due to Hanson reinventing herself as the champion of industry regulation and the opponent of the economic policies variously referred to as economic rationalism, globalisation or neo-liberalism.
It is also true that opposition to these policies has grown over the last few years, as the impact of the Commonwealth Bank and Telstra sell-offs has hit banking and communications services in small towns, and national competition policy and deregulation has bankrupted thousands of small farmers.
But to argue that One Nation has absorbed all, or even most, of the opposition to these policies is blatantly false.
Green vote
In the WA elections, the Greens polled 7.6%. In Queensland they averaged 7% in the seats they contested, the highest Green vote in many years. Much of this vote was taken from the Democrats, whose vote fell to around 2%. The Democrats themselves have conceded that this fall is probably associated with their support for the GST, which cost them much of their progressive image and identified them as another establishment party supporting neo-liberal "economic rationalism".
The other beneficiaries in both WA and Queensland were a rag-tag bunch of independents, varying dramatically in orientation from left to right, but all identified with opposition to the general direction of economic "reform". Prominent among these were the Liberals for Forests in WA, who polled extremely highly on a platform of opposition to the commonwealth-state regional forest agreements. Despite their identification with the Liberal Party, most of their preferences flowed to the ALP.
The dramatic increase in the Green vote should come as no surprise. The Greens have assiduously sought to identify themselves with the international movement against pro-corporate neo-liberal globalisation. Senator Bob Brown was the only parliamentarian to volunteer to speak at the S11 protest in Melbourne last year, and while the Greens did little to build that protest, they brought their party banners along in great numbers once it started.
Brown has publicly commented on the success of Ralph Nader's "Seattle Man" campaign in the US presidential elections last year and has indicated he intends to run a similar campaign in the Australian federal elections later this year.
The success of the Greens in the recent state elections points to the resonance that the anti-corporate movement has within the broader population.
But where is the discussion of the Greens "wake up call" in the corporate-owned media? Where are the interviews with Bob Brown, or the five Greens elected to the WA upper house? Where is the discussion of the significance of the S11 constituency? The corporate media have given us deafening silence.
Instead, the soundwaves are filled with Hanson bagging John Howard and slamming the Nationals, supplemented with her anti-refugee and anti-Aborigine comments. Of course much of this coverage is, on the surface, negative. "Hanson has no policies", the corporate media hacks shout gleefully, while they continue to dedicate column inches and air time to her dress sense, her anti-"economic rationalist" sloganeering and her racism.
This might seem a bit contradictory, but the coverage has a purpose. The corporate media doesn't think Hanson has solutions. Actually an enormous amount of space has been dedicated by "respectable" columnists since the WA state elections to arguing that Hanson has no solutions, that she represents nothing but a meaningless "protest". But it is precisely this lack of solutions that makes her the big-business media's favourite politician at the moment.
Hanson didn't become a symbol of discontent by herself. She has been created as one by the corporate elite who control over 90% of the media in this country.
Pro-capitalist 'opposition'
Since her first appearance on the political scene, the media barons, their hired hacks and the Coalition government have used Hanson to further their interests. The media used her attacks on Aborigines to build support for massive cuts to the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission. In the same way her comments about Asian migration were used as justification for a revamping of immigration policy towards rich white migration and away from poorer Asian migration.
Hanson's linking of the decline in living standards among 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of the working class to "privileges" given to the most disadvantaged 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of the population provided the corporate elite and the Howard government with welcome distraction from the devastating impact of "economic rationalism", particularly in rural areas.
As that impact has hit harder, however, Hanson has suddenly become useful again.
She was already a symbol of discontent for some of the population. Unlike the major parties, One Nation has never denied that most Australians are getting poorer and more economically insecure, and that is the basis of much of Hanson's popularity amongst working people. But Hanson neatly complements the major parties, because while she presents herself as an opposition figure to the "big boys", her explanation for the causes of the widening poverty gap entirely suit their interests.
Hanson's response to neo-liberal economic irrationalism rests on two basic planks. Firstly, implying that support of Aborigines, migrants and refugees has caused the disappearance of government services for "all Australians" and, secondly, supporting Australian businesses in the international marketplace.
Despite the media attempts to portray Hanson as the voice of the anti-globalisation movement, these policies are about as far from the aims of the S11 protestors as you can get.
The left-wing anti-globalisation protesters at S11 understood that the fight against neo-liberalism is a fight between the haves and the have-nots. "Economic rationalism" is just the latest set of policies designed to increase the wealth and power of the corporate elite at the expense of the world's people. Fighting these policies requires the exact opposite of what Hanson puts forward. It requires political solidarity between black and white, and between First World and Third World workers. And it requires a determination to take on the power of all corporations, regardless of their country of origin.
By attacking the basis of working-class solidarity with her nationalist, Australia-first arguments, Hanson makes it more difficult to expose the real causes of increased poverty. By supporting Australian businesses, Hanson obscures the fact that their profits are derived from the exploitation of workers here and overseas. Her "opposition" to nationalistic opposition to "economic rationalism" actually helps to reinforce its underlying premise — international competition between workers for the benefit of their national bosses — rather than promoting the only effective counter to it, international working-class solidarity.
So as the levels of discontent get worse, Hanson has been trotted out of the closet by the corporate media to "represent" the views of all those disaffected with neo-liberal economic irrationalism. By building her up as the symbol of anti-"economic rationalist" protest, the big-business media hope to contain the growing rage in the population, at least for long enough to increase the credibility of "economic rationalism" and the major parties (every daily newspaper ran articles defending "economic rationalism" in the week following the Queensland elections).
The media want working people to accept Hanson as the political embodiment their discontent, so as to channel their anger and protest towards the radical right and not the radical left.
The presentation of Hanson by the corporate media is consciously symbolic. Hanson's actual policies are given very little treatment. Instead, we are treated to discussions of her "style" (particularly her appearance) and her sloganeering-style criticisms of the establishment parties. This, of course, is exactly what Hanson wants. She doesn't mind if the media slam her for her lack of policy, or for her "unprofessionalism" as long as they continue to use her as a symbol of discontent.
Hanson's media profile has nothing to do with selling papers. It is not responsive to her "large" base of support — it is creating it. The Morgan poll published in the February 27 Bulletin magazine indicates that One Nation's support doubled during the media blitz following the Queensland elections.
Nor is Hanson showered with media attention because, as Margot Kingston tried to argue on the Sydney Morning Herald web site, she is "interesting" and has "shaken us up a bit". It is because Hanson is the dissent that is not dissent. And that is the only kind of opposition the corporate media are interested in.