All Australian progressives have had the dream: that some Bernie Sanders-like figure will rise up, gain enough support, and rescue Australian politics from its neoliberal stupor. But who really believes it’s a possibility?
The mainstream left in Australia has been in a state of ideological confusion for some time. The Labor Party tried to distinguish itself from the Coalition in the 2019 election by pushing what they claimed was a “bold policy agenda”. The fact that they saw it in this way is telling of how far they have moved toward the centre in an effort to steal votes from the right.
These days, voters who espouse modern leftist views see themselves more clearly represented by the Greens, and the Coalition continues to successfully convince centrist voters that a vote for Labor means higher taxes and a disastrous economy.
It’s unclear what lies ahead for Labor — and the party’s new leader hasn’t done much to quell the disillusionment. Anthony Albanese has brought nothing new to speak of since he succeeded Bill Shorten after Labor’s May election defeat. Albanese and Sanders are white male politicians, sure, but that’s where the comparison ends.
What Labor needs is a new leader who can break from Australia’s narrow political discourse; somebody who can break with the myth of “progress”, in the name of which anything is permitted.
If there is a chance of Labor shaking things up, now’s the time to do it. An economic crisis has been looming for some time, and the Grattan Institute has found that “today’s young Australians are in danger of being the first generation in memory to have lower living standards than their parents’ generation”. The neoliberal path that we have so fervently marched down is starting to look like a dead end.
So, how could things change in a radical way on the left? Either somebody could appear who, like Sanders, is able to rouse such support that our current complacency turns into fervour, or the public could demand such a figure.
The former situation would require someone within Labor ranks to go against the current grain of Labor thinking and convince the party that they should put their bets on a leader who stands out.
This shouldn’t be entirely ruled out. It’s possible that Labor’s current centrist rhetoric speaks more of a fear of pushing the public too hard than of true centrist belief. Yet none of the familiar faces have espoused any truly socialist values on the economy or led us to believe they are willing or able to battle the nationalist xenophobia that isn’t going anywhere without a fight.
Given this, the latter option is worth more thought. It’s often said that the Australian public is too politically disengaged to support such radical figures. Disengagement doesn’t exactly sum up the current malaise on the left, though. It can better be described as a state of resignation.
Those who once believed radical change was possible can’t even begin to conjure an image of who would bring about such changes today. Meanwhile, young Australians, in all likelihood, don’t even remember Australian political discourse as anything other than the monotonous tit for tat that it has become.
It’s not surprising that people are resigned. It isn’t easy to maintain hope in the face of the rising tide of right-wing extremism, the refusal to accept the global climate emergency, the steady degradation of workers’ rights and the demonisation of minority groups for political purposes. The fact that this trend is global makes resignation feel like a practical stance.
Resignation, though, is a dangerous thing. Resignation is what allows for horrendous atrocities to occur. The sense that we, as individuals, are powerless in the face of change — that occurs in a seemingly extra-human manner — diminishes not only our ability to act, but also our capacity to envision a future that is unlike the present.
It’s up to us to overcome this resignation. We do have the ability to demand better from our politicians, and we have the responsibility to do it. Right now.
Elise Addlem is a writer and philosopher from Melbourne.
What can the Australian public do to demand more from our politicians? Let us know by writing to boss@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name for publication.
Labor will never produce a Bernie-esque figure. To understand why, you have to look at how the ALP structure works compared to the US Democratic Party,
The Democratic Party, for one, like most parties in the US, isn’t a membership organisation. The closest thing that comes to membership of the Democratic Party are members of congress who form the Democratic Caucus. Outside of this, people sign up as registered supporters to vote in primary elections to determine candidates for election to office (be it President, Governor, congress or whatever else), which anyone can contest. That is why Bernie Sanders is able to sit as an independent, run for election as a Democrat, then continue sitting as an independent after failing, since repeat.
This brings me to the ALP. It is a membership organisation for a start, meaning not just anyone can sign up to the party and stand for election or vote for candidates in preselection. Preselections are determined on factional lines – electorates are divided along factional lines (“Left” and “Right” seats) and I’ve heard reports from some ALP members that in electorates designated for a particular faction, only members of that faction can stand for or vote in preselections with the other faction excluded. There may be some degree of flexibility at the individual branch level, however higher level positions in the party structure are determined along factional lines – deals stitched up, assurances made, all the rest of it. Even if a series of branches were to preselect a candidate for their election, the preselection of that candidate can just as easily be overturned by the higher levels of the party. Hence, not even a broad, rank-and-file branch take-over would be enough.
Then once a person gets into parliament, they are subjected to stringent rules that require them to advocate for and vote along party lines – going against the party line puts them at risk of expulsion from the party, a risk most MPs are not willing to contemplate. You see this example with the likes of Ged Kearney being trotted out to defend the party line on asylum seekers. Sure, they can argue their positions in caucus and kick heads but if the majority are against you, you will be seen as a rabble-rouser and won’t even be a look-in for any leadership position.
However, if such a person is lucky enough to get the leadership of the ALP – you would think that this is their chance to steer the party in a new direction, despite voting and advocating for the status quo for all of these years. Patience has paid off… Wrong! Once again, ALP party leadership is determined along factional lines. Note how Anthony Albanese actually got the leadership. Others stood aside. However, his leadership ascension was a stitch-up between himself and the Right faction. Albanese would have given the Right assurances (for example, Richard Marles being given Deputy), they stood aside and allowed him to take the leadership without any contest. Meaning, if Albanese was the progressive hero Labor needs, he’s tied to the party line, with no way of being untied and no way to steer the ship; meaning he’s powerless to do anything other than what the faction machine dictates.
Now, let’s compare this with a more relatable situation such as the UK Labour Party and the ascension of Jeremy Corbyn. UK Labor allow registered supporters to vote in leadership contests, and leadership contests are one value, one vote (as opposed to the 50/50 rule that applies to the ALP), and is not tied to factional lines. Not only this, but candidates for election are determined democratically and almost entirely at the constituency level, also not along factional lines. Furthermore, once elected, they aren’t tied to the party line. Even whip-line votes don’t risk expulsion. Corbyn himself as well as others had often dissented from the party line during the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown years, both in terms of speaking out against positions the party had taken (for example, on war) as well as voting against it on the floor of parliament. Corbyn subsequently never made it to the frontbench, but acquired him a small band of supporters that had been enough to get him nominated for, then subsequently elected into, by party members, the leadership.
If Corbyn was in Australia, he would have never made it very far in the ALP – in fact, he would have never been a look-in for preselection. On the other hand, if Joel Fitzgibbon or Richard Marles were UK Labour MPs, they would not have been a look-in for frontbench positions in the Corbyn-led Labour Party.
The ALP is irreformable. Plenty have tried in the past, many continue to try despite doing so being such a dead-end. As a consequence, in Australia, a Bernie or Corbyn-esque figure will only ever be able to emerge from outside of the ALP (and such a figure won’t emerge from the Greens, either), and will never emerge from within it.
Great comment – I am a Labor party member (albeit not very active..) and did not realise just how strictured the organisation is – I think you have nailed a huge problem that must somehow be rectified before the LNP stranglehold on lousy government can be broken for good.
This description is probably right in general but one of Labor’s best recent additions to its Parliamentary team said in an interview recently that she was not yet a member of the party when she was approached to be a candidate. So there is a path where the merit is obvious and outstanding. (In this case someone who raised herself from a survivor of a violent marriage to become a respected academic.)
The British system has problems of its own. Party members (on both sides) tend to be more extreme in their views than either the parliamentary party or the voters (even those who are fairly committed). Handing power of appointment to the membership has given Britain, one one side, an almost certainly unelectable Corbyn, and on the other Boris Johnson.
But then Albo was the choice of the ALP membership last time, anyway.
Add to that, the Australian electorate rejected possibly the most progressive agenda Labor has produced in ages, and re-elected a bitterly divided and borderline incompetent coalition. What chance would a Corbynesque figure have?
I agree the ALP had a more progressive agenda, just. So why weren’t they targeting the younger 18-35 vote? I well remember Shorten visiting primary and high schools, why the hell wasn’t he visiting university campuses with stump speech and Q&A sessions? No, this was a botched campaign and Labor needs to totally change their approach.
Ministers are appointed to make decisions on our behalf, even when unpopular. Government departments have the best experts in the country, and have access to academic experts worldwide. Shadow ministers have almost the same access to expert advice and should be shaping up election policies on that basis. The public has little time for access to expert advice and are consequently vulnerable to the promises of false prophets.
Our government should not have sent us to a referendum on gay marriage in 2017. The British government should not have held a referendum on disgruntlement with the European Union in 2016. Any government should act on the best advice available and present themselves at the next election as a government with a track record of well-informed decisions.
The analogy with Bernie Sanders is unfortunate. His promise to decarbonise the American economy is based on proven quackery. Instead, a reformist leader should be arguing with his followers, restating popular concerns into policies that are not only politically possible but are also well advised.
Have Labor become so clogged up with factionalism and procedure that they are now redundant? If so, who is going to replace them? The Greens? Good for the environment, shame about the economy. Anyone else??? I hate myself for saying this, but maybe Cory Bernardi was on the right track. Perhaps what is needed for this country’s future is for some disgruntled and visionary Laborites to leave the party and join together with the more sensible Greens (the ones who aren’t into replicating Labor’s factional warfare), and who have enough guts to take on News Corpse, 2GB, and the Seven West propaganda machines. Perhaps with some spirited competition, the old Labor Party might remember the days when purpose was more importance than placation.
Thanks for letting us know what we need, Elise. I’ll take it on board.
Just by the way, Bernie Sanders didn’t actually manage to become a candidate for the presidency last time, and it’s not looking much as though he will this time. Maybe an Australian equivalent would have more success. Or maybe not.
This article, and the comments below, fail to see that the pre-election 2019 Labor commitments were a huge departure from old cautious Labor policies. Albanese has only shrunk back to further spineless-ness. By the way, he was down the road in Grayndler from Sussex Street. He’s only now seen the light? I don’t believe that.
Labor pre-election did not manage to say “We are producing a New Deal” for everyone. That was a pity. BUT, if you note, voters in affluent areas, disgusted by tax perks to the top [often for themselves], the environmental degradation and a fraudulent Morrison, chose Labor. The entire Shorten team was united, but just too timid about connecting up all the policies to what was their actual New Deal.
Hawke was never a neo-classical economist, but he weakened under global threats. Keating was only a cultural radical. After that, Rudd and Gillard tried a few things, but they were caught in the vile metrics dictated by high finance care of the craven Howard and Costello.
The Shorten team was the first to return to the greatest Prime Minister Australia has ever had: John Curtin. Not only, they never abandoned the Labor links to the “Industrial Labor movement” either. Albanese does not even care about unions, especially poor given the brilliant leadership of the ACTU now. I asked Albo once, and I am unclear whether he understands or wants to know anything about social justice or environmental degradation. How could he have let the top tax cuts through! And the rest.
As for the USA, the tragedy is they’ve never allowed a Labor movement into power. Instead unionists were/are shot and killed.
The ALP under Bill Shorten only ever shifted to the Centre after it being a Centre-right party since Hawke. Shorten was still wishy-washy – there was no commitment to a raise in Newstart, he tried to play both sides on Adani, there was no jobs guarantee, no major commitments to industrial relations (they didn’t even commit to the entirety of the ACTU’s Change The Rules demands), among other issues. They still maintained their hard line on national security and asylum seekers.
The ALP let the Coalition set the agenda, didn’t challenge the status quo and thus gave no compelling reason for people to vote for it.
Matt…I have been a follower of the ALP for the best part of 70 years…you have a lot to learn about politics!
Firstly…do you really think other Oz parties are any different? They are not.
Secondly…politics is the art of the possible.
Thirdly…if the ALP did as you suggest, it would never get elected in this rather ‘conservative’ country we live in.
Finally…the ALP has most of the top echelon of the country against it, particularly the media and those with deep pockets such as the lying underhand performance of Clive Palmer before the last election.
The Oz electorate is largely uninterested/uninformed about issues which affect them, which leads to them voting, in most instances, against their own best interests.
Having said all that…the Labor party seems to have lost its way since the election, so we can but hope that the party and its MPs will spend their time producing a progressive agenda to take to the next election. Its early days at present.
There are NO guarantees in politics regardless of how parties are structured, or who leads them. If you belong to a political party you either accept the majority view and formulate policies accordingly…try to change the culture of the party from within…or you get OUT.
Simple as that!!
While seemingly reasonable CML, although dismissive of Matt’s quite accurate summary, I think you might be fighting the last war.
The old models are broken, the ‘politics is the art of the possible’ is an axiomatic statement that means nothing at all, and prescribes no limits on what is in fact possible. If something got done, it’s suddenly possible. Also often excused by politicians lacking the courage to push the envelope. Almost nothing of Whitlam’s tenure was considered possible, until he did it.
The Labor party is broken in an administrative sense, but that is fixable. It’s culture is broken, and that isn’t really fixable. Trying to turn that ship around is pointless. Only the fact that the LNP is bereft leaves them as a viable opponent.
New tactics and strategies are required. Getting into the system to change it defies rational thinking. Getting out and breaking it from the outside is the only option.