Now their problems really begin

LAST CENTURY, Jim Bacon, an admirable man in many ways, launched a war against the Tasmanian Greens party, and changed the whole structure of the state’s parliament to squeeze them out of power. The old Maoist even chain-sawed out the cross-benches in Parliament as a bit of political theatre to emphasise the fact. A decade and some on, the Greens are back and Labor’s right-wing machine are a bunch of third-raters washed down the political gully trap.

That’s a tremendous achievement.

Now their problems really begin.

However moderate and practical their short-term policies are, Green parties only exist as transformative parties. They cannot be anything but a party that thinks of itself as part of a long march to a changed way of life, and a new relationship between humanity and nature.

That makes them an oppositional party, one whose core beliefs are set against the assumptions open-ended growth, an undemocratised private sector, etc which underpin the system in which they participate. Most parties don’t face that dilemma. Those who do come from left and right, and they deal with it in various ways.

Some, like the French Communist Party in the 80s, take cabinet posts. Others support a government but stay out of it. Others like the Greek Communist Party explicitly define themselves as an opposition. Some like Sinn Fein in the UK parliament, wield power by winning seats, and never taking them.

The crucial thing is that there are times when it pays to be in opposition, even if you need to help put in place the government you’re going to oppose.

For the Tasmanian Greens, winning the balance of power creates great temptations to get into government, take ministries, change things.

But the question has to be asked is this a time to be in government, administering power?

To do so, is to be under a federal government whose commitment to combatting climate change is vastly inadequate by Green standards, and the same can be said for biosphere protection, and many other things.

Whatever initiatives the Greens would have scope to do, would be circumscribed by the larger policies they would be obliged to enforce.

That, as the man said, is to enter a world of pain.

Quite aside from the damage to a sense of Green identity, as a party that represents something fundamentally different, there are other dangers. Energy that should be going into campaigning politics gets diverted to administration and enforcement, a division between MPs and rank and file is created to little advantage, and the question of where to compromise comes back so repeatedly that splits become inevitable.

By contrast, staying out of power, while offering support to one party by an initial vote of confidence, subsequent to an agreed minimum budget programme offers considerable advantage. First and foremost is the chance to give a clear line on the inadequacy of major party responses to the challenges of our time. Secondly, there are numerous resources now available to mount better campaigns of opposition with added resources. Third, it’s easier to march in lockstep on votes, when you’re not administering policies you don’t like as a minister, thus avoiding splits.

True, there are risks to this strategy. Australian political culture doesn’t have much place for oppositional politics, with the notion of ‘put up or shut up’ being fairly strong. But if the reasons why one wasn’t participating in such a government was clearly communicated, it shouldn’t lose support.

Nor am I suggesting the Greens should never enter government. I’m suggesting that they should aim for 2 to 3 more seats, which would then put them in a position to be equal or even senior partner in a government down the track or forcing the other parties into a revealing Lib-Lab coalition.

Some may ask how one could knock back power. The question in the current situation seems to be how can you not? If you truly believe that the challenges we face are epochal, and that the business-as-usual attitude can’t continue, then how is it possible to forgo the opportunity to campaign for fundamental change, in order to manage the details? Why settle for a slice of bacon now, when what you really want to do is stuff the whole pig?

Guy Rundle is … (a bio is on its way)