Labor governments, alliances and social change

Geoff Drechsler says it’s time the ALP seriously reconsidered its attitude to coalitions with the Green Party.

Things never stay the same forever. This is nowhere more evident than in Australia's new political landscape. The recent NSW state election and last year's Victorian state election offer an interesting contrast in the different possibilities that now exist. One was characterised by animosity and finger pointing between Labor and the Green Party, the other by co-operation sufficient to return Labor to government without controversy. It is interesting, because in both cases the situation is exactly the same.

Labor now has a genuine contest with the Green Party in its inner-city strongholds, but needs the preferences of the Greens in suburban marginal seats to hold government. The Victorian Greens, in everything but name, did a deal with the Liberals for the four seats that mattered the most, and then Victorian Labor concocted a preference deal that gave the kiss of life to a moribund political organisation, the Democratic Labor Party (whose historical modus operandi was solely to keep Labor out of office). NSW Labor, on the other hand, worked out an arrangement with the Greens that also appears to cover the upcoming (and arguably more important) federal election.

Both scenarios are symptomatic of the possibilities in the new Australian political landscape, to which Labor must adapt in the longer term. One of the most significant changes is the rise of the Greens. For the first time in decades, there is a significant political party of the left in Australia. Given participation in traditional political structures and the changing nature of Australian society, it's time for Labor to rethink its traditional opposition to coalitions and working with other organisations and movements beyond the labour movement. Labor now needs to embrace coalitions and work with like-minded organisations and if it is to achieve any of its long-term reform goals or maintain long-term electoral success. We also need to recognise that the scope of these possibilities are broader than simply a short-term arrangement for the next election, too.

The historical absence of an electorally successful leftwing party has had a profound impact on Australian politics. In one sense Australian politics through the 20th century could be defined as Labor and anti-Labor, rather than simply left and right. Labor eschewed working with other parties from its inception 100 years ago, to ensure that it's program of reform, to put the interests of ordinary Australians first, was not compromised, or diluted, by participation in the political horse trading that occurred between the various vacillating centrist parties of the day. The Labor Party has continued its historical aversion to coalitions and alliances, facilitated practically by the absence of any other organisations or parties. Labor's only coalition to date is the accord with the Tasmanian Greens in the 1990s (such was the suspicion of coalitions even then, that it was called an "accord" instead). It has also given rise to a "if you're not with us, you must be against us" mentality which, at times, is not conducive to exploiting electoral opportunities.

It is time for Labor to reconsider this approach for a number of reasons, and to start working with other parties and organisations more broadly than simply arrangements for elections. Australian society is much more diverse than when Labor started more than a century ago and Labor can no longer hope to exclusively represent the interests and aspirations of ordinary Australians, the Left and its allies. Also Labor and its allies in the labour movement no longer have sufficient organisational capacity alone to take on Australia's elites and the attitudes and apathy in the wider community that perpetuate the status quo. The size of the Labor Party membership is now at its lowest level historically and union membership has dramatically declined. In order to influence civil society in a progressive direction, we now need to work with others. Put simply, Labor needs new friends.

Possibilities exist to be active about this. What sets the Northern European social-democratic parties apart from labour parties like ours is that they often provided the initiative and organisational impetus for the formation of trade unions in their respective countries (as opposed to countries with labour parties, where the reverse occurred). A good example is Sweden. Most importantly, these unions then played an important role in organising the social democrats' natural constituency - working class voters. Once organised, this social group could then be mobilised, either industrially or politically. In Australia, at present, many of the social groups that could be Labor allies are unorganised and as a result have little political impact in broader civil society. Some examples of these are first-home buyers and tenants, young people, social-security recipients, public-housing tenants, small businesses and even many working Australians who have lost contact with the labour movement. The recent organisational initiatives around Progressive Business and the ACTU organising model, if adapted to community organising, provide good models. Also, creating a legislative framework that is conducive to union organising and growth is also crucial. Additionally, Labor itself has the collective experience organisationally of a hundred years of working with, and representing, the Australian community on which to draw. Labor would be well served by encouraging collective organisation among these groups, where possible, to build a broader movement for change in Australian society. This is not simply about just winning the next election, it is about having a strategy to build a long-term social alliance to support a long-term Labor government. This could mobilise all those who support Labor's agenda, whether in part, or wholly.

Some in Labor assume that the Green Party is a temporary feature on the Australian political landscape and that things will return to some sort of two-party normality shortly. Such thinking is ill-considered. The Greens are part of an international movement that has 40 odd parties around the world, and are represented in local, state and national parliaments in many of these countries. Its central constituency, the new middle class, is growing, as opposed to one of ours, the organised blue collar labour that is in decline. (The others being migrants and youth, with an obvious overlap between these groups). The Greens may be recently arrived, but they will be a continuing feature of the Australian political landscape.

Additionally, to achieve Labor's goal of long-term social change, we also need a sustained period of government (particularly after 10 years of conservative rule). All the evidence from overseas suggests that this is most likely to be achieved through a coalition or other sort of arrangement, with other left parties. A good example is the current New Zealand Labour government. It is the longest serving Labour government in New Zealand, and the first left coalition government in that country.

The process of reaching agreement and working together to form coalitions, whether in the community or in parliament, will be a new environment that is quite unfamiliar for Labor. It is the opposite to how we function internally and outside the tradition of democratic centralism and cabinet solidarity. The starting point is to accept that the parties involved will not agree on everything and ensuring that one issue does not overshadow all others.

There is also one variable, over which we will have not control, and that is the political maturity and discipline of the organisations we deal with.

One lesson from overseas is that deals and arrangements are best concluded long in advance of elections, less common sense fall victim to political manoeuvring, as appears to have happened in the run up to the Victorian election. One-off political wheeling and dealing is not suitable to this approach as those in politics tend to have long memories. An earlier shortsighted arrangement may undermine our ability to deal with some groups later. Overseas, semi-formal, longer-term arrangements appear to have been most successful. These discussions between parties need to extend beyond simple exchanges of preferences, to the more important question of what aspects of Labor's program other organisations are prepared to support, and what aspects they are not prepared to support. (It is important to remember that other parties will never support all of our program otherwise they'd be members of the ALP already). What is needed is a clear delineation about where the various parties will agree to disagree, to ensure that as much of Labor's program is implemented. The other advantage to acting on these matters earlier, is that where other progressive organisation behave like recalcitrants, there is adequate time to put pressure on them from the broader progressive forces in society to see sense, the current situation in Victoria being a point in case.

By rights, in 21st-century Australia, Labor should be the 'natural party of government'. There are real opportunities now for a broad social coalition that would allow Labor to achieve this. The world has changed significantly since we last governed, so we need to rethink how we work with others to achieve in this new environment.

July 11, 2007