Who Should Fill The Seats Of Power? Stripped of its cloying political candy-floss, the diversity project is a pure-and-simple power grab. It’s core objective is to fundamentally shift the balance of power in favour of those currently excluded from the inner sanctums of privilege, where political and economic power is wielded decisively by members of the dominant class/race/gender. How are we doing? Well, there's some movement (not enough) on race and gender. Just don't mention class.
MATT McCARTEN understands the practical consequences of
political idealism better than any left-winger I’ve ever known. “It’s always about
the numbers”, is one of his favourite sayings. Another is: “How big is your
army?” Both reflect an unsentimental grasp of the brute numerical realities of
democratic politics all-too-frequently lacking on the Left.
Back in the 1990s, when Jim Anderton’s remarkable coalition
of insurgent political parties, The Alliance, was regularly outstripping Labour
in the polls, it was part of Matt’s job to convey the realities of progressive
diversity to his white, male, socialist comrades.
Working from the latest poll results, he would offer them
his estimate of the maximum number of seats the Alliance was likely to win.
Matt would then remind them of the quota of seats allocated to each of the
Alliance’s constituent parties. Of the quite modest number of seats available
to the socialist NewLabour Party, at least half were automatically set aside
for women. Proper consideration also had to be given to the Waitangi Treaty
Partner – before assessing the NLP’s Pakeha comrades.
As the ambitious socialist males gathered around Matt
performed the necessary arithmetical calculations, their faces fell. Clearly,
the chances of an ambitious Pakeha socialist making it into Parliament were
somewhere between slim and non-existent. “Diversity” was indisputably an
important progressive objective – but it was not without its downside.
Julie Anne Genter’s unfortunate remarks about diversity
(unfortunate because, like David Cunliffe’s “I’m sorry I’m a man” comment, they
will be hung around her neck for the rest of her political career) were jarring
for exactly the same reason’s Matt McCarten’s triennial lecture to the NLP’s
left-wing males was jarring. They revealed what lies on the obverse side of the
“positive discrimination” coin: the inescapable obligation of the old order to make
way for the new.
“Speaking to students at Christchurch’s Cobham Intermediate
School on Thursday [22 March],” reported Stuff’s Adele Redmond,
“Genter said the private sector needed to address the low level of female
representation on New Zealand company boards if more businesses were to be led
by women.
“About 85 per cent of board members were male, and many were
‘old white men in their 60s’.
“‘Some of them need to move on and allow for diversity and
new talent,’ she said, later clarifying she had ‘no problem with old white men’
on company boards generally.”
Really? Why not? Stripped of its cloying political
candy-floss, the diversity project is a pure-and-simple power grab. It’s core
objective is to fundamentally shift the balance of power in favour of those
currently excluded from the inner sanctums of privilege, where political and
economic power is wielded decisively by members of the dominant
class/race/gender.
As the Minister for Women, it is Ms Genter’s job to have a
problem with men on company boards. Assuming that it’s a core part of the
Minister’s remit to ensure that the percentage of women on company boards
matches the percentage of women in the population as a whole, then some blokes
will, indeed, have to “move on”.
“It’s all about the numbers.”
That those blokes should, preferably, also be white and over
60 is, presumably, because their ethnic origin confers a power advantage every
bit as decisive as their gender; and because their advanced years make them
statistically more likely to harbour reactionary views about women, Maori and
other minorities, than younger, more enlightened New Zealanders.
“Reactionary” is not an accusation anyone could fling at
those two “old white men” Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.
Ah, but Bernie and Jeremy are self-confessed socialists
whose core mandate is all about delivering justice and equality not only to
women, people of colour and the LGBTQI community – but also to the
working-class.
That’s the awkward thing about socialists: they’re forever
bringing class into discussions about diversity.
‘How is inequality reduced by bringing an extremely wealthy
business-woman with reactionary views about Maori and the poor onto a company
board?’, the socialists demand to know. ‘Wouldn’t a much more substantive blow
for both diversity and equality be struck by appointing a sixty-year-old
working-class trade union secretary to the company’s board of directors? After
all, a man who’s spent the last 40 years of his life scrutinising the company
accounts and whose knowledge of the needs and capabilities of the workforce is
second-to-none, is likely to bring many more progressive ideas to the table
than a ruthless female lawyer from the Big End of Town!’
How would history have unfolded if the Alliance had selected
its candidates purely on the basis of merit? Would Nigel Murray’s nemesis, Dave
Macpherson, have made a better MP than Mana Motuhake’s Alamein Kopu? We will
never know.
Six out of the eight members of the Green Party caucus,
including Ms Genter herself, are women. That’s splendid – but how many of them
are socialists?
This essay was
originally published in The Press of Tuesday,
27 March 2018.
