Mass Resistance To A Left-Wing Government: Women bang pots and pans in protest at the shortages arising out of the right-wing strategies of resistance directed against the left-wing government of Chilean President Salvador Allende 1970-73.
CAN WE REALLY DO THIS? As the euphoria of victory wears off,
and the sheer enormity of the challenge confronting progressive New Zealand
reveals itself, it would be foolish not to feel just a little bit daunted. We
face an economic system without the slightest idea how to solve the problems
created by its discredited policies and practices. Nevertheless, the Neoliberal
Establishment remains very strong, and just as soon as it settles upon an
effective strategy of resistance, the fightback will begin.
Two principle lines of attack present themselves. The first,
sketched out in this morning’s NZ Herald
editorial, is to paint the new Labour-led coalition as little more than a
pink-tinted continuation of Bill English’s National Government.
The Herald’s
leader-writer dismisses any notion that the new regime represents some sort of
sharp break with Neoliberalism. He is at pains to point out that all the key
elements of the “Open Economy” remain firmly entrenched. All we are hearing
from Labour, he says, is the rhetoric of change. But, even the most cursory
examination of the Labour-NZ First-Green Government’s priorities, argues the Herald’s leader-writer, reveals them to
be little changed from those of the Clark-Cullen years: priorities to which
both John Key and Bill English were more than happy to subscribe for 9 years.
This is a subtle strategy, directed principally at the new
government’s most ideologically-committed supporters. Its purpose is to
demoralise, antagonise, and inflame suspicion. At its heart stands the figure
of Grant Robertson: Finance Minister and close friend of Prime Minister Ardern.
As the prime-mover of the Labour-Greens’ self-limiting “Budget Responsibility
Rules”, Robertson has already positioned himself as New Zealand Capitalism’s
first line of defence against left-wing fiscal recklessness. By praising
Robertson’s political moderation and economic orthodoxy, the Herald’s mouthpiece intends to divide
and conquer the Neoliberal Establishment’s most coherent progressive critics.
The most obvious deficiency with this “demoralisation”
strategy is that it leaves the Opposition with very little room in which to
manoeuvre politically. If the Labour-NZ First-Green Government is really just a
slightly pinker version of its pale-blue predecessor, then how can National
attack it with any credibility – or success? To raise a political storm violent
enough to reclaim the Treasury Benches requires the red-hot passion of the
fanatic – not the lofty sneers of the neoliberal intellectual who recognises
kindred economic spirits when he sees them.
That Richard Prebble recognised this in an instant is
unsurprising. Few living New Zealand politicians can claim a better rapport
with the dark animal spirits needed to rouse this country’s right-wing voters.
It was Prebble who recognised the futility of Act attempting to sell pure
free-market policies to an electorate that wasn’t buying them. It was only when
he identified the party with law and order, crime and punishment, environmental
scepticism, and the deep anti-Maori prejudices of rural and provincial New
Zealand that Act was able to lift itself up and over the 5 percent MMP
threshold. Like Rob Muldoon before him, Prebble understands that to make
right-wing Kiwis angry enough to destroy the Left, you first have to frighten
them out of their wits.
Hence Prebble’s outrageous claim that Winston Peters is
guilty of mounting a coup d’etat against Kiwi democracy. It is not his purpose,
and neither, I suspect, does he believe it should be National’s, to convince
New Zealanders that they have nothing to fear from what, in all likelihood,
will prove to be a pretty mild and responsible Labour-led Government. His aim,
and almost certainly the aim of most of the National Party caucus (and their
surrogates in the mainstream news media) is to splash as much red paint over
Jacinda Ardern, Winston Peters and James Shaw as is humanly possible.
The Labour-NZ First-Green Government will be presented by
these hard-line rightists as an illegitimate and dangerously anti-capitalist
regime. Its anti-business and anti-farming policies, they will argue, are not
only incompatible with genuine Kiwi democracy, but also constitute a direct
attack on the sanctity of private property. As such, it will not be enough to
merely oppose this far-left government; it will be necessary to fight it
head-on.
Interviewed on RNZ’s “morning Report” this morning, Ken
Shirley, CEO of the Road Transport Forum (and former right-wing comrade-in-arms
with Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas in both the Labour and Act parties)
reminded listeners of the massive truck-owners protest in the dying days of
Helen Clark’s government. If Jacinda’s government went ahead with its plans to
use the Road User Charges collected from the RTF’s members for purposes other
than the maintenance and construction of roads, then similar protests could be
expected.
Prior to the coup that toppled the left-wing “Popular Unity”
government of Salvador Allende in 1973, the country’s economy had been made to
“scream” by a nationwide strike organised by the right-wing truckers’ union and
supported by the bosses of Chile’s biggest trucking companies. The ensuing
shortages brought thousands of angry, middle- and working-class women onto the
streets, banging their pots and pans in protest. The right-wing newspapers
maintained a relentless barrage of criticism against the “anti-democratic” and
“incompetent” government of Chile’s self-proclaimed Marxist president. Calls
for Allende’s forcible removal grew louder and more frequent until, on 11
September 1973, General Pinochet was obliged to overthrow the “communist
dictator”.
A very similar project of economic destabilisation and
political mobilisation was set in train by the right-wing opponents of the
left-wing Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, in 2002.
As a strategy of right-wing resistance, it has proved
successful in a distressingly large number of countries. Progressive New
Zealanders would be most unwise to believe, even for a moment, that it cannot
happen here.
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Thursday, 26 October 2017.
6 comments:
The National Party want to rule, a birth right to some. They see Labour led govts as just an inconvenient interlude between pulling the levers of power. Its who really makes up the National supporters outside of the core 20% support base, and why, that needs serious scrutiny.
There seem to be two major groups that simply panic at the thought of any left-wing policies. Firstly the big business people, who might not make QUITE as much money as before, and secondly those small business people who are maybe struggling to make a living – including those who would have been employees before neoliberalism turned them into contractors or independent business people. These latter seem to be the ones who do the heavy lifting by way of demonstrating and the like. You have to have a certain sympathy for them, because as I said many of them are struggling with financial insecurity, aspirational maybe, and desperate to make sure that they aren't reduced to the working class again. The two groups are a dangerous combination.
We must give the Labour party the chance to prove to NZ that they can improve the lot of all New Zealanders.
Winnie and his mob can and will probably be the counter weight to recklessness of Government excesses.
Bon voyage to them all.
We new sunshine, not sunset in commentary from our media.
A serious question to all readers, should we ask Winnie to be the King of New Zealand?.
Reasonable and fair-minded Kiwis do want change after nine oppressive years of an increasingly fascist rightwing National govt only interested in those with dollars on their mind.As long as Jacinda and the Labour-led coalition government continues to espouse kindness, decency and fairmindness in their policies of social change the pillar of neoliberalism will begin to weaken and crack in time. Can't turn back the clock of thirty odd years of greed and selfishness in one term, but it can put up a sign for the future. It is just a pity I won't be round to see the demise of neoliberalism
It is profitable capitalism that keeps the Scaninavian welfare states sustainable.
Jens Meder
You miss the point as always when you say that it is profitable capitalism keeping the Scandinavian welfare states sustainable. It is intelligent and humane thinking and action on their part from the welfare state to capitalism that enables them to operate the both. Capitalism on its own would destroy all that.
Post a Comment