The Greens suck.
(in other news, the sky is black, buses appear on time, and George Bush is a competent leader.)
So Mr Wilkie has decided that the Greens aren't very good, and he's tired of party politics, and he's leaving. So take that, Aus Greens!
Normally, this would pass without concern, indeed, no one would even know (or care). But Mr Wilkie has determined, in his infinite wisdom, that releasing his departure from the Greens and bitching about why would be a good move and make for a GREAT news item.
To make it easier for me to rip his foolish notions apart, I've itemised his complaints:
Mmmkay. So I'm going to start with item two and work my way down, finally looking at the first complaint.
Second item essentially amounts to not wanting to work in a group because you can't do everything you want. This does not bode well for a political career for Mr Wilkie. See, when you're a politician, you have to work with a bunch of people, some of whom have competing interests, and all of whom will have some part in stopping you from doing everything you want to do. That's life, and that's part of being on planet Earth. If you don't like working together and consensus building, then you never belonged in the Greens.
Prior to joining the Australian Greens, Mr Wilkie would've done well to read through the Charter (which he should have received after submitting his application for membership to the Greens even if he couldn't be bothered to read it earlier). Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Australian Greens Charter, section 36.1:
Decisions at all meetings of The Greens will be made primarily by consensus and a serious attempt at all times will be made towards achieving consensus. Sufficient time will be allowed for discussion of different views, including provision for non decision making meetings.
And section 36.4:
Except where this constitution requires a decision to be made by consensus only, if after a reasonable period of time, disagreement persists over a particular proposal, and a decision cannot be deferred, a procedural motion may be put that a vote be taken. A procedural motion will be deemed carried by a two-thirds majority.
So this means that a) you can't do everything you want and b) if you want to do something in the name of the Greens, you're going to have to have -- at the very least -- a majority of party members agreeing with you. This is not new. The Greens have always been based around consensus making, and most intelligent people would be able to infer that if everyone has to feel comfortable with what happens under the party name, you're going to be restricted in what you can do.
Third concern regards a lack of professionalism. This is a complicated point, and something that concerns other Green members as well. How 'professional' do we want the Greens to be? At their very core, the Greens are created in response to the hierarchical construction of society. As I detailed in the paragraph above, rather than having a couple of people at top making all the decisions, the Greens are based on everyone having input, regardless of race, gender, education, class, financial status, etc. So that means that just because you're wearing a suit and tie, you don't have any more pull or sway than the bogan wearing ugg boots or the brickie with an entire wardrobe sourced from Yakka Workwear. I know that's not the way things worked for you as a senior intelligence officer in the army, but in case you're not aware, the Greens aren't the army.
That said, I have had the same concerns as Mr Wilkie, and expressed them on several occasions to other Green members. As we grow bigger (and we will!), we're going to be forced to 'officialise' a lot of our informal arrangements. One example of where we've already done this is in not having a party leader. Up until late 2005, there was no single person that the public and the media could go to as 'the leader of the Greens'. Bob was certainly regarded as such informally, but it wasn't until two and half years ago that his status as leader of the Greens was made formal. And there are a few things like this that will need to be addressed as grow. But that's okay. Our growth has slowed to a steady increase, which will allow us as a party to improve and adapt as necessary. Just because something isn't being done better in the Greens doesn't mean that it can't be. Our ability to be honest with ourselves and our desire to admit when we're wrong and change for the better remains one of my favourite things about Australia. And the Australian Greens, to a far greater degree than any other party in Australia, exemplify this. (un-Australian my arse)
As I hinted earlier, there's a risk to all of this: can we become too professional? With the other parties, 'professionalism' has entailed a reduction in grass-roots activism and influence. A few 'tards at the top make all the decisions, and unless you're prepared to wear a suit and play the same dirty game of exclusion, you have no pull. This lack of influence in real decision-making contributed to the creation of the United Tasmania Group (the precursor to the Greens). To move towards this brand of professionalism would be to ignore the whole reason that we're here. It not an easy task, trying to find the happy medium on an always changing line, but I think we're doing pretty well.
Four: The Greens only care about environmental issues. What a crock of shit. If Mr Wilkie remembers (and he really should), he stood as a Greens candidate on a platform of opposition to the Iraq War. Bob has been the most out-spoken politician on Burma and the continued injustices performed daily there. Which party supports right-to-die legislation? Which politician rejected a $1 million bribe to support cross-media ownership legislation (while going in to hundred of thousands of dollars of debt to save the Wielangta)? Throughout her time in the Senate, Kerry Nettle has campaigned ardently for the release of asylum seekers from their cages in the desert. Fuck you for wiping out years and years of activism of almost one million Greenies so that you can get on your high horse and whinge that the Greens are only about environmentalism.
Of course, it's true that the Greens never stray too far from campaigning for environmental protection. It goes back to our 'Four Pillars': social justice, environmental sustainability, nonviolence, and grassroots democracy. No single item can be removed from the equation without the whole thing falling down. Social justice is irreparably tied the environment, which is tied to human rights, which is tied to a functioning political system. So no, the Greens will never turn their back on the environment because it forms an integral part of our platform.
I think what Mr Wilkie's complaint, or at least a more nuanced version of it, would be along the lines that the environment is given great heed than the other three pillars. This is true, and the reason is two-fold: The Greens were created initially for the protection of the environment. Those are our roots, and we can't ignore that. But more importantly, the other three pillars can be addressed at any time. I don't mean this to sound flippant, but regardless of whether a country gets electoral reform in 1902 or 2002, the outcome will be the same. With the environment, however, the degradation that is occurring now is irreparable. When you drive you car to the shops instead of walking or cycling, the carbon gas you emit cannot be undone. At best, the damage can be mitigated, and we're fast reaching practical limits to mitigation. Whether a carbon-emissions policy is enacted now or enacted in 10 years makes a huge difference. But environmental protection cannot occur in a bubble, so the Greens continue to campaign strongly for social justice, democracy, and nonviolence, knowing that without these also put in place, any progress in sustainability would quickly be undone.
And lastly, item numero uno: internal wrangling and party politics. I'll get this bit out of the way first: you're in a political party. Party politics are not unheard of. It's a party, based on politics. There will be party politics. Need I say more?
So the fun part: internal wrangling. I'm limited in how much I can say here, since as a member of the Australian Greens (although I have a feeling my membership may have lapsed -- I'll have to check on that) I'm not supposed to publicly bitch about the party. That said, the Greens are based around transparency, and no one's going to read this far anyway.
During my time with the Queensland Greens, I was disappointed at how much strife there seemed to be in the branch. There were one or two people (actually, about five) who were insistent on having their way, who continually waved their 'I've been a member for 5000 years' flag anytime a dissenting view was raised. A collection of a few people were kicked out for reasons I still don't know, which flies in the face of consensus building and transparency.
But the thing that bothered me the most (and, I note, continues to irritate me) was a deal that was done with a for-profit company. This deal was not mentioned to other members who weren't 'in the know' until it was up and running on the website (i.e., nothing could be done about it). I raised this concern at a local meeting the next month, and was encouraged to bring it up with the person who had made the deal. I sent an email to said person with my concerns, explaining that I was worried about attaching the name of the Greens to a company we have no control over, in the name of what would amount to a couple of dollars of fundraising from skin lotion (if I haven't already given it away, I have now!). The response was defensive, and completely ignored my complaints. I was unable to do anything further (we exchanged a few more emails before I realised it was futile), despite my valid concerns and backing of at least a few QLD Greens.
I continue to be concerned about the infighting over silly things ('State Council meetings: let's argue for 45 minutes over whose turn it is to speak!'), the occasional lack of transparency, and the total control that a few members exert upon the entire Queensland State branch. I imagine that this is even more the case in the Tasmanian branch, where due to the age and status of the party there, people feel that they should have even more of a stake in the direction of the party. But you know what? This is the case in every other frickin party across Australia and across the world. Shit happens. People are idiots. Shady deals occur. Individuals go into politics for purely self-serving motives. It sucks. Those sorts of things make me want to announce defeat, give up activism, and buy myself a Hummer. But it's also what got me in to politics in the first place. I'm not going to sit by and let people dominate society simply because it makes them feel important. Because of a few who stood up and said 'hey, this is wrong, and I'm not going to tolerate it', hydro-electric damns have been stopped. Wrongs have been righted. Traditions of outdated expectations and justifications have been overturned. Lives have been saved. It is, without question, the most beautiful thing about 'the left', and what drew me to progressive politics: sticking up for what is fair and just.
When you have a minority-based group, you're going to have a lot of members who aren't afraid to go against the grain; independent-minded members who are capable of thinking for themselves. You're never going to have a time where, despite all evidence to the contrary, people will support a person or an ideal because they don't want to be the only one to speak out. Blanket support of a leader is unheard of (cf. John Howard and the Liberal party, much to their detriment). Yes, it'll cause fuck-ups and fights and, just as I started off by saying, you're never going to be able to have everything your way. At the end of the day, however, we're always united by the notions that brought us together in the first place: Idealism. Social justice. Equality. Fairness. Justice. Cooperation. Empathy. Sustainability. Democracy. Peace.
Let's not become exactly what we've campaigned against. And please, don't let the erroneous notions pushed by free-market capitalism and its proponents influence us to give in to our weaker desires of 'individualism'. The whole of society is so much more than the sum of its parts. We are not just individuals. Let's work together, drawing on our strengths and ameliorating our weaknesses to make the society that we know is possible. We're better than this.
So Mr Wilkie has decided that the Greens aren't very good, and he's tired of party politics, and he's leaving. So take that, Aus Greens!
Normally, this would pass without concern, indeed, no one would even know (or care). But Mr Wilkie has determined, in his infinite wisdom, that releasing his departure from the Greens and bitching about why would be a good move and make for a GREAT news item.
To make it easier for me to rip his foolish notions apart, I've itemised his complaints:
- Internal wrangling and party politics
- Baggage and strictures as a result of having a political party (desire for political independence)
- Lack of professionalism
- Tensions within the party as a result of him not being big on forestry issues
Mmmkay. So I'm going to start with item two and work my way down, finally looking at the first complaint.
Second item essentially amounts to not wanting to work in a group because you can't do everything you want. This does not bode well for a political career for Mr Wilkie. See, when you're a politician, you have to work with a bunch of people, some of whom have competing interests, and all of whom will have some part in stopping you from doing everything you want to do. That's life, and that's part of being on planet Earth. If you don't like working together and consensus building, then you never belonged in the Greens.
Prior to joining the Australian Greens, Mr Wilkie would've done well to read through the Charter (which he should have received after submitting his application for membership to the Greens even if he couldn't be bothered to read it earlier). Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Australian Greens Charter, section 36.1:
Decisions at all meetings of The Greens will be made primarily by consensus and a serious attempt at all times will be made towards achieving consensus. Sufficient time will be allowed for discussion of different views, including provision for non decision making meetings.
And section 36.4:
Except where this constitution requires a decision to be made by consensus only, if after a reasonable period of time, disagreement persists over a particular proposal, and a decision cannot be deferred, a procedural motion may be put that a vote be taken. A procedural motion will be deemed carried by a two-thirds majority.
So this means that a) you can't do everything you want and b) if you want to do something in the name of the Greens, you're going to have to have -- at the very least -- a majority of party members agreeing with you. This is not new. The Greens have always been based around consensus making, and most intelligent people would be able to infer that if everyone has to feel comfortable with what happens under the party name, you're going to be restricted in what you can do.
Third concern regards a lack of professionalism. This is a complicated point, and something that concerns other Green members as well. How 'professional' do we want the Greens to be? At their very core, the Greens are created in response to the hierarchical construction of society. As I detailed in the paragraph above, rather than having a couple of people at top making all the decisions, the Greens are based on everyone having input, regardless of race, gender, education, class, financial status, etc. So that means that just because you're wearing a suit and tie, you don't have any more pull or sway than the bogan wearing ugg boots or the brickie with an entire wardrobe sourced from Yakka Workwear. I know that's not the way things worked for you as a senior intelligence officer in the army, but in case you're not aware, the Greens aren't the army.
That said, I have had the same concerns as Mr Wilkie, and expressed them on several occasions to other Green members. As we grow bigger (and we will!), we're going to be forced to 'officialise' a lot of our informal arrangements. One example of where we've already done this is in not having a party leader. Up until late 2005, there was no single person that the public and the media could go to as 'the leader of the Greens'. Bob was certainly regarded as such informally, but it wasn't until two and half years ago that his status as leader of the Greens was made formal. And there are a few things like this that will need to be addressed as grow. But that's okay. Our growth has slowed to a steady increase, which will allow us as a party to improve and adapt as necessary. Just because something isn't being done better in the Greens doesn't mean that it can't be. Our ability to be honest with ourselves and our desire to admit when we're wrong and change for the better remains one of my favourite things about Australia. And the Australian Greens, to a far greater degree than any other party in Australia, exemplify this. (un-Australian my arse)
As I hinted earlier, there's a risk to all of this: can we become too professional? With the other parties, 'professionalism' has entailed a reduction in grass-roots activism and influence. A few 'tards at the top make all the decisions, and unless you're prepared to wear a suit and play the same dirty game of exclusion, you have no pull. This lack of influence in real decision-making contributed to the creation of the United Tasmania Group (the precursor to the Greens). To move towards this brand of professionalism would be to ignore the whole reason that we're here. It not an easy task, trying to find the happy medium on an always changing line, but I think we're doing pretty well.
Four: The Greens only care about environmental issues. What a crock of shit. If Mr Wilkie remembers (and he really should), he stood as a Greens candidate on a platform of opposition to the Iraq War. Bob has been the most out-spoken politician on Burma and the continued injustices performed daily there. Which party supports right-to-die legislation? Which politician rejected a $1 million bribe to support cross-media ownership legislation (while going in to hundred of thousands of dollars of debt to save the Wielangta)? Throughout her time in the Senate, Kerry Nettle has campaigned ardently for the release of asylum seekers from their cages in the desert. Fuck you for wiping out years and years of activism of almost one million Greenies so that you can get on your high horse and whinge that the Greens are only about environmentalism.
Of course, it's true that the Greens never stray too far from campaigning for environmental protection. It goes back to our 'Four Pillars': social justice, environmental sustainability, nonviolence, and grassroots democracy. No single item can be removed from the equation without the whole thing falling down. Social justice is irreparably tied the environment, which is tied to human rights, which is tied to a functioning political system. So no, the Greens will never turn their back on the environment because it forms an integral part of our platform.
I think what Mr Wilkie's complaint, or at least a more nuanced version of it, would be along the lines that the environment is given great heed than the other three pillars. This is true, and the reason is two-fold: The Greens were created initially for the protection of the environment. Those are our roots, and we can't ignore that. But more importantly, the other three pillars can be addressed at any time. I don't mean this to sound flippant, but regardless of whether a country gets electoral reform in 1902 or 2002, the outcome will be the same. With the environment, however, the degradation that is occurring now is irreparable. When you drive you car to the shops instead of walking or cycling, the carbon gas you emit cannot be undone. At best, the damage can be mitigated, and we're fast reaching practical limits to mitigation. Whether a carbon-emissions policy is enacted now or enacted in 10 years makes a huge difference. But environmental protection cannot occur in a bubble, so the Greens continue to campaign strongly for social justice, democracy, and nonviolence, knowing that without these also put in place, any progress in sustainability would quickly be undone.
And lastly, item numero uno: internal wrangling and party politics. I'll get this bit out of the way first: you're in a political party. Party politics are not unheard of. It's a party, based on politics. There will be party politics. Need I say more?
So the fun part: internal wrangling. I'm limited in how much I can say here, since as a member of the Australian Greens (although I have a feeling my membership may have lapsed -- I'll have to check on that) I'm not supposed to publicly bitch about the party. That said, the Greens are based around transparency, and no one's going to read this far anyway.
During my time with the Queensland Greens, I was disappointed at how much strife there seemed to be in the branch. There were one or two people (actually, about five) who were insistent on having their way, who continually waved their 'I've been a member for 5000 years' flag anytime a dissenting view was raised. A collection of a few people were kicked out for reasons I still don't know, which flies in the face of consensus building and transparency.
But the thing that bothered me the most (and, I note, continues to irritate me) was a deal that was done with a for-profit company. This deal was not mentioned to other members who weren't 'in the know' until it was up and running on the website (i.e., nothing could be done about it). I raised this concern at a local meeting the next month, and was encouraged to bring it up with the person who had made the deal. I sent an email to said person with my concerns, explaining that I was worried about attaching the name of the Greens to a company we have no control over, in the name of what would amount to a couple of dollars of fundraising from skin lotion (if I haven't already given it away, I have now!). The response was defensive, and completely ignored my complaints. I was unable to do anything further (we exchanged a few more emails before I realised it was futile), despite my valid concerns and backing of at least a few QLD Greens.
I continue to be concerned about the infighting over silly things ('State Council meetings: let's argue for 45 minutes over whose turn it is to speak!'), the occasional lack of transparency, and the total control that a few members exert upon the entire Queensland State branch. I imagine that this is even more the case in the Tasmanian branch, where due to the age and status of the party there, people feel that they should have even more of a stake in the direction of the party. But you know what? This is the case in every other frickin party across Australia and across the world. Shit happens. People are idiots. Shady deals occur. Individuals go into politics for purely self-serving motives. It sucks. Those sorts of things make me want to announce defeat, give up activism, and buy myself a Hummer. But it's also what got me in to politics in the first place. I'm not going to sit by and let people dominate society simply because it makes them feel important. Because of a few who stood up and said 'hey, this is wrong, and I'm not going to tolerate it', hydro-electric damns have been stopped. Wrongs have been righted. Traditions of outdated expectations and justifications have been overturned. Lives have been saved. It is, without question, the most beautiful thing about 'the left', and what drew me to progressive politics: sticking up for what is fair and just.
When you have a minority-based group, you're going to have a lot of members who aren't afraid to go against the grain; independent-minded members who are capable of thinking for themselves. You're never going to have a time where, despite all evidence to the contrary, people will support a person or an ideal because they don't want to be the only one to speak out. Blanket support of a leader is unheard of (cf. John Howard and the Liberal party, much to their detriment). Yes, it'll cause fuck-ups and fights and, just as I started off by saying, you're never going to be able to have everything your way. At the end of the day, however, we're always united by the notions that brought us together in the first place: Idealism. Social justice. Equality. Fairness. Justice. Cooperation. Empathy. Sustainability. Democracy. Peace.
Let's not become exactly what we've campaigned against. And please, don't let the erroneous notions pushed by free-market capitalism and its proponents influence us to give in to our weaker desires of 'individualism'. The whole of society is so much more than the sum of its parts. We are not just individuals. Let's work together, drawing on our strengths and ameliorating our weaknesses to make the society that we know is possible. We're better than this.