BY PETER BOYLE
In real political terms the most important development in the November 30 Victorian election was the doubling of the Greens' vote — to 9.2% in the lower house and 10.3% in the upper house — and their beating the Liberals to win the second-biggest first preference vote in four inner-Melbourne electorates.
The Greens did not get a single parliamentary seat out of their 23-27% vote in those inner-Melbourne electorates, thanks to the undemocratic electoral system, but their vote was much more significant than the landslide re-election of the state Labor government led by Premier Steve Bracks. "Jeff" Bracks Labor will continue to run the Victorian government with pretty much the same pro-big business policies as the Liberal opposition.
The Greens' gains will raise hopes among a large number of people, all around Australia, that the Labor-Liberal stranglehold on parliamentary politics can be seriously challenged.
Greens Senator Bob Brown said this result means the Greens have replaced the Australian Democrats as the "third force" in politics. While the Democrats still hold on to eight seats in the federal Senate, their vote was decimated in the Victorian poll. Even the new Socialist Alliance, with its modest average 2% vote, won more first preference votes per lower house seat contested than the Democrats!
Currently the Greens have two senators, two parliamentarians in NSW, five in WA and four in Tasmania. However, if the Greens' average 10% vote in Victoria is matched, or improved on, in the March 2003 NSW elections they should gain at least another upper house seat. And in the next federal election they could take more Senate positions from the Democrats.
The Greens' electoral progress is a reward for the role they have played as the only real parliamentary opposition in a period of great political polarisation. On the top national issues of refugees' rights, anti-terrorism laws and the war drive, the Greens have spoken up against the reactionary Liberal-Labor consensus. They have also been the vocal parliamentary opposition to anti-union laws, attacks on welfare, attacks on public education, law-and-order hysteria and economic rationalist measures. This is in addition to defending the environment, still widely perceived as their core concern.
The Greens' progressive parliamentary stance has a bigger resonance in the population than Green and left election campaigns have tapped until now. After the S11 blockade of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne 2000, we recognised the rise of a mass left-of-Labor constituency. It was anti-neo-liberal, anti-corporate and pro-environment, but it was also a constituency that was frustrated with the parliamentary political process.
However, the dramatic rise in the Greens vote could spur a lot of people, who had previously given up trying to buck the two-party domination of electoral politics, to look to Green and other progressive candidates in future elections. So we might be looking at not just a repeat of the Greens Victorian result in NSW but a significant increase on that.
The new rise of the Greens is most spectacular in the inner-city electorates but their vote had doubled almost right across all electorates. So, while sitting Labor parliamentarians in Sydney's inner-city "Green triangle" around Marrickville and Port Jackson are certainly worried about the Greens (and making concessions accordingly), we may see a much wider left-of-Labor vote in the NSW election.
According to the Greens — and this is confirmed anecdotally by Socialist Alliance polling booth campaigners — the biggest single demographic group that is swinging to the Greens is young people. This is particularly noticeable in working-class electorates.
The dramatic rise in the Green vote is a victory for the progressive side of politics. So, should the socialist left continue to run its own candidates in elections or should we throw all our support behind the Greens?
The newly formed and recently electorally registered Socialist Alliance ran candidates in three of the four inner-Melbourne seats that the Greens did best in. In most of the seats we still obtained higher votes than explicitly identified socialist candidates have recently averaged around the country. This shows that even with the rise of the Greens vote, there is still the political space for socialist candidates — and we should use it.
The socialist left has a duty to maintain its active presence in electoral politics, campaigning for the most important pre-requisite to defeat the conservatives: the need to rebuild and democratise working class organisation from the ground up. This should complement our presence on the picket lines and at rallies to defend militant unions.
Continuing an independent and united socialist electoral presence is also important because the conservative Liberal-Labor agenda cannot be defeated simply through bumping good people into parliament. The Socialist Alliance unites many of the progressive movements' street activists, and strengthening this layer is at least as important as the Greens winning more seats in parliament.
A socialist electoral presence also expresses explicit anti-capitalism. A better and more sustainable world is only possible if the capitalist system is replaced.
The votes of socialist candidates will be eclipsed by that of the Greens for some time, but we need to be patient, recognising this an important stage in the working-class break from conservative Laborism. Of course, socialist candidates should continue to direct our second preferences to the Greens and campaign together, where possible, against the conservative Liberal-Labor consensus.
[Peter Boyle is a member of the Socialist Alliance and the national executive of the Democratic Socialist Party.]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, December 11, 2002.
Visit the