Political Arsonists: Only a mass influx of people determined to make policy – not tea – can rescue the Labour Party from the self-perpetuating parliamentary oligarchy which is continually burning it down in order to save it from itself. Only a rank-and-file membership that is conscious of, and willing to assert, its rights – as the Corbynistas are doing in the United Kingdom – has the slightest hope of selecting a caucus dedicated to meaningful economic and social reform.
SO, PHIL GOFF now feels confident enough to answer questions
about Labour’s TPPA stance on Paul Henry’s breakfast show. That pretty much
says it all. The victory of Labour’s right-wing rear-guard (and the parallel
humiliation of Andrew Little) could hardly have been expressed more
forcefully. With this latest usurpation,
Labour Party members need to ask themselves two questions: 1) “Why does the
Labour Caucus keep destroying the Labour Party in order to save it?” And: 2)
“Why is the rest of the Labour Party unable and/or unwilling to stop them?”
To answer the first question, one must try to view the
Labour Party from the perspective of Phil Goff and Annette King. In their eyes
Labour is still the party that rescued New Zealand from Muldoonism, and dragged
its sclerotic economy kicking and screaming into the era of free markets and
free trade. Though they have learned not to say so too loudly, they remain
immensely proud of the achievements of the fourth Labour government. And they
absolutely will not repudiate its legacy. (When a trenchant repudiation of
Rogernomics was included in the 2012 draft of Labour’s “Platform” document, it
was “amended” out of all recognition!)
Goff and King are also acutely aware that there are fewer
and fewer Labour MPs with Cabinet experience. Not surprisingly, they feel an
obligation to make their own experience available to the younger occupants of
Labour’s Front Bench. And, when they see an inexperienced Labour leader
marching into what they perceive to be “trouble”, they understandably feel duty
bound to intervene, and steer him out of it.
Many of those younger Labour leaders (Grant Robertson,
Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins) won their political spurs working for Helen
Clark’s Government. Like Goff and King, these younger MPs take enormous pride
in “their” administration’s achievements. In their eyes, Clark’s 9 years in
office constitute an example of outstanding political management. Where other
party members took issue with Clark’s authoritarian style, these young and highly
ambitious members of the PM’s ‘apparatus’ became convinced that only a highly
centralised and tightly disciplined party could guarantee social-democracy’s
electoral success in the twenty-first century.
David Shearer is a curious Labour
politician. The older members of Caucus regarded him not only as someone in
whose hands Roger Douglas’ reforms would be perfectly safe, but also as a
politician whose “back-story” was sufficiently varied and exciting – not to say
“heroic” – to offer some much needed competition to John Key’s rags-to-riches,
state-house-to-White-House narrative. That he failed to fire as Labour’s leader
left the Caucus’s right-wing faction without a viable candidate of its own. It
can intervene, but it cannot lead.
Taken together, the attitudes of these Labour MPs reveal
an overwhelming preference for government by elites: a process which
admits very little in the way of popular participation. Elitist politicians believe the will of the people is best ascertained by scientific opinion
polling, and that the content of party policy is best left to appropriately
qualified experts – not the votes of poorly educated delegates
at out-of-control party conferences. So called “democratic” government is not
about giving power to the people – God forbid! The true purpose of elections is
to resolve high-level disputes about the optimum management of the state and
economy. An outcome best achieved, according to the Italian social scientist,
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) by means of an “orderly circulation of elites”.
Eruptions from below (like the election of Jeremy Corbyn in
the UK) pose a deadly threat to elite politics – especially if you’re one of
the elite that’s about to be circulated into office! The last thing you need then
is a bunch of unruly party members determined to lay their untutored hands on
the delicate machinery of government. Better by far to lose an election or
three, than to install the animal spirits of popular democracy on the ninth
floor of the Beehive. After all, life among the elites can, in many ways, be its
own reward. Eventually, your turn will come.
Why doesn’t the Labour Party organisation sweep this elitist
arrangement into the dustbin of history where it belongs?
The easy answer is: “Because it’s just too bloody hard!”
Members of Parliament are well-paid professionals, while most rank-and-file
members are well-meaning amateurs, with jobs to go to and families to look
after. In any contest between these two, the odds generally favour the
professionals. Moreover, when played seriously, politics is a far from congenial
pastime. From those who succeed in mastering its dark arts, it almost always
exacts a very high psychological toll. There are even some who say that by the
time an aspiring MP has a reasonable chance of entering Parliament, none of the
qualities that initially recommended him, or her, for the job, will have
survived!
The other great impediment to the NZ Labour Party turning
itself back into the vibrant, highly creative and enthusiastically democratic
organisation it was in the early 1980s, is its own history. By 1989,
Rogernomics had driven the Left out of the party, and, by 1994, the arrival of
MMP had persuaded the Right to follow suit. What remained was a political party
emptied of all conviction and passion, and absolutely terrified at the prospect
of a return to the bitter factional disputes of the late-1980s.
By the turn of the century, many members had learned to
positively relish the level of control Helen Clark and her caucus exercised
over the party organisation. The latter’s expert “guidance” from above had impressed
upon them the logic of Pareto’s version of democracy. From 1993 onwards, the
party was happy to let Helen and Michael and Phil and Annette and Steve and
Trevor handle the important stuff. They were happy to hand out the pamphlets,
erect the billboards, make the tea.
Only a mass influx of people determined to make policy – not
tea – can rescue the Labour Party from the self-perpetuating parliamentary
oligarchy that currently controls it. Only a rank-and-file membership that is
conscious of, and willing to assert, its rights – as the Corbynistas are doing
in the United Kingdom – has the slightest hope of selecting a caucus dedicated
to circulating the whole oxymoronic notion of democratic elitism out of New
Zealand’s political system altogether.
A version of this essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Friday, 16 October 2015.
