Why Dissent is Under Attack

The persistent attacks of Mr Richard Alston and the PM upon the ABC, have now been followed by criticisms by Gerard Henderson and others about the national broadcaster's attempt to justify its own standards of objectivity. And now the debate is joined by the Institute of Public Affairs with its underlying and well-elaborated alarm at NGO involvement in the public policy process.

Before we get carried away by Gary John's attack on NGOs we need to remember that Alston and Howard are also leading spokesmen for one very powerful and privileged NGO, the Liberal Party of Australia. This NGO is in receipt of significant public funding so it can present its policies to the electorate at election time. Political parties should never be exempt from the kind of criticism directed at NGOs particularly now that they are recipients of public funding for election campaigns. But the new-wave criticism of NGOs is strangely silent about political parties, and somehow this issue is ignored.

It is quite convenient for the current Government that the neo-liberal criticism of NGOs makes a new media debate about the role of the ABC. This is a much needed diversionary tactic even though it clearly wants to bring about changes to the approach of the national broadcaster. Howard's suggested constitutional reforms to the Senate are, similarly, another diversion aimed at taking public scrutiny away from the performance of the Liberal Party of Australia as a never-to-be-criticised NGO.

So let's ask what the Labor and Coalition parties, as parties, have done with the public monies they receive? What do they, as parties, do to promote the just Parliamentary representation of all citizens? What are they doing to safeguard loyal dissent in this country? The answer, sadly, is not very much; political party self-interest is such that there is not much perceived mileage in promoting just Parliamentary representation of all citizens. When the authentic and valid dissent in the country cuts across the perceived interests of the party machine it will not be considered relevant. And that is also where the media fails us as well. Howard's much vaunted "both sides of politics" is in fact an enormous flop, a dangerous flip-flop squashing dissent, a world-view that now renders democracy in Australia problematic. But how did this come about?

The answer has to do with a corporatist view of politics that has dominated Labor and Coalition thinking since the 1983 election of the Hawke Labor Government. Another term for it is "economic rationalism". This view is not just a policy here and a piece of legislation there; it is a world-view. It is a creed, and it is believed to be a necessary basis for political life, for social life, in its entirety. It is not just a way of managing finances, although it is that too. It is not just a matter of new policies in the different Government departments. It is all that and more. It is indicative of a commitment to transform all of social life. It does not leave our understanding of Parliamentary democracy untouched. Political parties have not been left untouched.

It's a long story. Keating was happy enough for NGOs to offer criticisms of Government policy, but the critics of NGO involvement in public policy, led by former Keating minister Gary Johns, see this as a serious failing, an unwillingness to apply corporatist thinking to the processes of Government itself. For Johns the Governing party is the Government and like the board of Directors they are responsible until the next time stake-holders are brought together to vote for them. This corporatist view does not really have a place for a Parliamentary Opposition - it's an indulgence, a quaint historical artifact - and that is also part of the reason he does not address the role of political parties in the Government process, nor view the Liberal Party as an NGO.

But suffice to say that but since 1996 the Howard Government has become progressively more authoritarian, and increasingly uneasy when NGOs, in receipt of public funds, criticise Government's underlying economic rationalism. What right have they to do so, Government apologists argue, when they have not been elected to govern? Their monies have not been given for them to be advocates of political causes!

But there is another side to this that should not be ignored. There is a distinct lineage of ideas from Hawke/Keating 1983-1996 and Howard 1996- . Both sides of Parliament in the main accept the ideology of economic rationalism. Where there is no concerted parliamentary dissent leading public opposition to this viewpoint, NGOs have little option but to offer their criticism. They have little choice if they are to maintain the public integrity of their organization. The Coalition Government does not like this because it highlights the underlying consensus, it reminds the Howard Government where its basic ideas came from (ie from Labor) and raises the spectre of dissent that is critical of the consensus underlying "both sides of politics". This, I suggest, is why the Government takes aim at the alleged bias of the ABC.

Moreover, soon after the 1996 election, Federal Parliament brought in legislation to change the way the ballot paper could be filled in. Since then public funding for elections has also come on stream. Now in any electorate for a federal lower-house seat those who, by conscience, cannot vote for either of the two largest parties are required by the rules governing a legal vote to nevertheless chose between them. This rule is an important part of the electoral process and we would have to say that it has the effect of presenting the electorate with a fait accompli - both the Liberal-National Coalition and the Labor Party assume they will together dominate Federal Parliament, one as Government, one as Opposition. They do not use their public funds to advocate electoral reform and a new system of representation to safeguard democracy, whether it is "liberal democracy" or "social democracy" or some other form. They simply use public funding to market themselves and their respective political machines as the bastions of our system. In other words: we will not address any flaws that it is not in our party's interest to address. "Both sides of politics" fail badly at this point.

What this does is to effectively establish Howard's "two sides of politics", and it is when we understand what this means for the consciences of loyal Australian voters that we realise that our electoral system is seriously in need of reform. Serious dissent may not be imprisoned in this country, although Albert Langer was. But now the law governing the ballot paper excludes votes based on conscience when that conscience cannot prefer either Coalition or Labor.

It is a flawed ballot, a ballot which excludes the simple act of registering conscientious dissent. This fact also confirms our view that current electoral funding is an unfair use of public funds for a few privileged NGOs. It should also be asked whether it is compatible with principles said to underlie national competition policy.

The PM appears to assume that Gary Johns will be accepted as a reliable "objective" consultant because he is from "the other side of politics". But both Howard and Johns ignore the authentic "other side of politics" in the Australian electorate, the conscientious dissent to the two major parties which the 1996 ballot legislation tried to over-ride. There is an injustice here which needs to be exposed and we do it by viewing the major political parties as the privileged NGOs they are. We should reject Gary John's/ IPA criticism of the ABC; it is superficial and self-serving propaganda, part of a concerted economic rationalist corporatism which in identifying itself with the national interest squashes genuine dissent. It simply extends an approach to politics, which has grown in force over 20 years since the 1983 election, that excludes political dissent that cannot be absorbed by the two major Parliamentary political electoral machines. Australian democracy needs political parties to be subjected to a lawful process of political dis-establishment; that would promote public justice and open up the arena of political debate to genuine alternatives.

Sunday, August 10, 2003

August 2003 © Christian Radical Reflections, is written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. This personal project aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and our neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au . http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html