August 2004 #3

The Loony Left, Chavez and Organising Democracy

What a busy week for democracy it's been this last seven days. The newly installed democratic government' of Iraq remains unable or unwilling to rule for the people and expel the occupational forces; John Howard continues to demonstrate that he is anything but "honest" and willing to pursue truth in government and Hugo Chavez, for the third time, wins the vote of the people of Venezuela. Whew! I'm tired just reading about it.

I only want to chat about two of the above today as its worth taking the time in trying to understand what kind of democracy we want in OZ, given that whatever it is we've got it certainly isn't government for the people, by the people's elected representatives. Perhaps as John Valder inferred on the Sunday program, Howard is our first elected dictator. Or as he said, he would rather say that Howard is an "autocratic", devious and deceptive leader. Lets compare Howard to Chavez.

Venezuela's leader has had to fight off a Bush White House sponsored coup attempt in 2002; he has withstood the vitriol of the private media and a CIA backed campaign to undermine his energy policy. His energy policy by the way was for the state to reclaim, on behalf of the people, the oil-producing infrastructure for the benefit of the people. Has Chavez acted autocratically? Maybe. Has he attempted to govern for the people? Definitely. Does he face his critics head on? Whenever possible. Does he return personal attacks with muckraking? No. Instead he says, the freedom of speech is paramount in a democracy and people need to hear all sides at all times. Like John Howard, he says, the people will make up their minds. And they did, by overwhelmingly supporting him in last weekend's referendum. So, it seems Howard and Chavez share some similarities. But in diametrically opposed ways.

Where Howard says he governs for all we find that his definition of "all" is very narrow. We find that the Howard government is certainly anything but open and truthful (the renewed children overboard issue is but one instance - remember the `core and non- core' promises?). Where Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Abbott and Costello denigrate their critics as `the loony left', the `usual suspects' or "doddering, daiquiried diplomats", Chavez encourages even those who ran a campaign depicting him as a gorilla to speak their mind. Where Howard hides his advisers behind a firewall of `privilege', Chavez encourages the people to question everything. Where Howard allows his ministers to present lies and half truths as fact and `evidence', Chavez demands of his minister loyalty to only thing - the long term future of the Venezuelan people. Where Howard fawns at the feet of the US administration and seeks a place in posterity as being the one to sell our heritage for a bowl of pottage (the US-A FTA), Chavez demands that his country stand on its own and shows by example true leadership by confronting and rejecting US demands head on. At least he seems to understand the notion of national sovereignty and self-determination.

After two elections and a referendum in which he was comprehensively approved of by the people, Chavez seems to have the confidence of the majority - including a large swath of the ruling class. So why is it that an ex-paratrooper from a working class background can instil in the people of his nation a sense of hope and solidarity while Howard continues to rule by creating divisions? I suggest that Chavez's desire to unite his fractious communities and re-establish a democratic socialist republic is the reason he has been so successful. This and redistributing the common wealth of the country.

On the other hand, as I've said previously, Howard has built his reign on a divide and conquer strategy. The downside of this is, of course, that you run out of groups to divide and conquer. Howard has done just that and now the very supporters he relied on to promote him to the top job are now turning on him and they don't need the `loony left', the `usual suspects' or "doddering, daiquiried diplomats" (or the ABC) to help them.

They are quite willing and able to organise and fund their own campaigns. John Valder, the man who has been credited with remaking Howard's career in the 1980's, says that, "John Howard is the turncoat and traitor" who has become "the most powerful Prime Minister" Australia has ever had to endure. But, says Valder, Howard is a "grubby Prime Minister" and a war criminal. I mean, with friends like these Howard may need to call on some of those old "doddering, daiquiried diplomats" (or the ABC) to help turn his image around. But what has this got to do with democracy? Isn't this just another polemic against the PM's mob?

Firstly it has everything to do with democracy. No matter how flawed the implementation, the basis of one person one vote (as opposed to party aligned representatives voting on our behalf) is still sound. However, when those who are elected begin to rule as if they are uniquely placed to intuit the will of the people as if gifted from on high and are backed by the seemingly bottomless pockets of the wealthy, then what we have no longer democracy, but a dictatorial plutocracy.

British political theorist Rodney Barker writes that most of the effort of the ruling classes goes into grandiose displays put on solely for reinforcing their own image of being `born to rule'. I point to Howard's usurping of many of the roles traditionally carried out by the Governor General (now who is that?) as a demonstration of his desire to be and to be seen to be surrounded by the trappings of wealth and power. On that note I will respond to the accusation of this being just another polemic by saying, "maybe", but the evidence seems to point to more fact that emotion or ideology.

So what kind of democracy do you want? One in which the leader is not afraid to allow his critics to have their say. One in which the people's needs come first. A democracy in which, when you vote, the result is overwhelmingly endorsed by the international community and as is the Venezuelan case a reflection of Chavez's ability to unite his fractious nation. Even the US administration has had to admit this latest referendum means they may - notice, may - have to change their stance on Chavez. Or would you rather one in which the ruling party makes and breaks the rules as they go? A `democracy' in which the lies of the leaders are not pursued by the media and laws are changed to prevent natural justice (think Tampa). A democracy where the working class are despised by the leadership and where the poor are derided as a `burden' and where the sick and disabled are treated as `non' people.

Australia is at a cross roads and although I'm not a political historian, what fascinates me about our current time is that all commentators, right, left, radical and conservative agree on one thing: that John Howard will be remembered. How he will be remembered is another thing. The writers of political history will record that Howard was a `visionary' leader who strode the world stage like a true `statesman'. The popular memory of Howard is more likely to be of a mean spirited "little" Johnny who took from the poor while swarming it with the rich. If, as Howard trumpets, we should trust him and abide by `traditional' Aussie values like `mateship', egalitarianism and the `fair go', the shouldn't our type of democracy reflect these ideals and our leaders govern for us, not against us?

Chavez and the Venezuelan people have given us a model for a better way of organizing the outcomes of our democratic processes. The question facing us is, "do we have the `intestinal fortitude' to demand of our representatives the type government that will restore a sense of national pride and enthusiasm for building a better future for our children and their children".

The Governor General of Australia is Major General Michael Jeffery and his wife is Marlena.