Critical Times

by Rob Gowland

What an ignominious spectacle the right wing of the Labor Party has made of the party the union movement originally set up. At the recent NSW Labor Party Conference, ministers spewed invective and abuse over the unions and the rank and file alike. Using the well-known “debating” tactics of Macquarie St, they made it explicitly clear that they had no intention of abiding by decisions of the Party.

As one union leader who opposed the sell-off of NSW power stations pointed out, they were in Parliament, and in power, not because of their personal charisma or other sterling qualities, but solely because they were the endorsed candidates of the Labor Party.

Nevertheless, only a handful of Labor MPs were prepared to oppose the Iemma government’s decision to privatise electricity. And even those few knuckled under at the first meeting of the parliamentary caucus after the State Conference and gave Iemma their full (if perhaps grudging) support.

That they were sworn to support in parliament the policies of their party, the Labor Party, had become an irrelevancy. That they were in fact ratting on the people who had elected them, was mere rhetoric.

That they were betraying their Party and its members and supporters, apparently troubled them not all. One was inescapably reminded of Mark Anthony’s deeply sarcastic description of the conspirators who stabbed Julius Caesar in the back: they were all “honourable men”.

I believe the thinking of the “honourable men” in the present case was obscured, if not completely taken over, by something that has bedevilled the Labor Party for a century or more: opportunism; the willingness to sacrifice any principle for the chance to get into office and then to stay there.

One need go no further back than the election of the Hawke government to witness the wholesale abandonment of Labor and trade union principles by MPs bedazzled by the prospect of getting into power. The threat of losing office, of being cast once again into the void of Opposition, has been a powerful weapon for the right-wing of the Labor Party, something that can be used effectively to keep “radical” elements in the party in line.

Remember, when Howard was still in office, how the trade union movement was hamstrung by the way many trade union leaders openly hesitated to “rock the boat” for fear of some supposed adverse effect it might have on Labor’s electoral prospects?

But what is the value of getting elected if, in order to do so, the party abandons every principle for which it allegedly stands?

The ruling class, of course, is happy: offering the voters a choice between a reactionary Liberal Party and a clone of the Liberal Party with an overlay of Labor Party procedures is their idea of democracy. Giving the people a choice that is no choice at all is basic to the ruling class’ concept of democratic governance.

Cynics might say that the Labor Party’s willingness to abandon any principle if it means getting elected is because the opportunities for profiting by graft and corruption are necessarily much, much higher for the party when in government. And that is certainly true.

There is, however, more to it than that, I feel. The chance to tread the corridors of power, the lure of being able to make policy, rather than just criticise it as the Opposition does, is clearly very great indeed. Hawke used that lure to gain support from some key left-wing trade union leaders when he was preparing to introduce the Accord, that treacherous brake on working class militancy.

In the present case we have been left with a very curious spectacle indeed: as Labor Party MPs crumpled under the sneers of Iemma and the invective of Della Bosca, the only NSW lower house politician to stand firm on his principles was Peter Debnam — a Lib, but with more integrity apparently than any on the other side of the House displayed.

Surprisingly for a Lib, Debnam does not support the privatisation of electricity, and, since the Liberal Party does support it, he quit his Front Bench position in the Opposition. His rejection of privatisation, and the overwhelming rejection of it by the Labor Party Conference (including union delegates of the left and the right), show how deeply unpopular is the Iemma government’s policy on this matter.

Significantly, Iemma and Co did not make privatisation of electricity an issue in the last NSW election, waiting until they were re-elected to spring it on the people they allegedly represent. A cynical exercise that stems from their contempt for the people who elect them and their equally cynical belief that for at least eighteen months after winning an election they can do virtually anything they please, confident that with a carefully-planned campaign in the twelve months or so before the next election they will be able to befuddle, mislead or divert the electorate sufficiently to win once more.

Bourgeois politicians call it democracy, others might call it a sham, but as a system, it suits capitalism very well. And that, after all, is its purpose.