By Steve Painter
The proposed August 3-4 national meeting on formation of a green party has definitely been postponed. Confirmation of this comes in a covering letter from the five "conveners" accompanying a longer letter from Senator Jo Vallentine suggesting postponement.
The conveners say the postponement is necessary because "at this stage there can be no agreement on the issues of representation or voting, as we cannot even gain agreement from groups to participate in a ballot to decide this issue".
The five conveners are of the opinion that "there is a lack of commitment among certain groups to giving the national meeting a fair chance of success", and that "the August meeting in its proposed form would probably result in confrontation and a subsequent stalemate".
Obviously unhappy with the unenthusiastic response to their proposal, the conveners swing a couple of kicks at the nearest available cat, claiming "most of the responses ... have come from registered groups where the influence of the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) is very high (among them being Western Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs, South Sydney, NSW Green Alliance, Victorian Green Alliance and ACT Green Democratic Alliance)." For good measure, they accuse Green Left Weekly of "coloured" coverage of the national meeting preparations, and claim untruthfully that it is a DSP publication.
GLW has received many comments that it was the place where many greens first heard of the proposal for a national meeting, and the main source of information about preparations for it.
The five conveners also "note with interest that the NSW registered groups are planning to meet in Sydney on 6 July. We feel hopeful that a fresh initiative will emerge after this meeting, and groups will be contacted at that time."
It is possible this "fresh initiative" will involve an attempt to duplicate the Queensland Green Network position proscribing members of other parties from a national green party, followed by a push to form a party by the section of the movement that accepts the proscription position.
Such a project would involve only part of the green movement, and would probably fail. In any case, it is unlikely many greens would accept the degree of centralisation necessary to impose such an undemocratic structure.
Meanwhile, some supporters of the proscription position have also swung towards the option of a centralised national green party as opposed to an alliance.
Many others also regard alliance as a realistic option, among the more notable being Australian Democrat leader Senator Janet Powell. The May issue of Forest Reporter carried an article elaborating on a speech Powell made to the Ecopolitics V conference in early April. Discussing possible relations between the Democrats and a green party, she canvassed the options of merger and alliance:
"The merger option is the most challenging ... If a green party forms and then almost immediately loses its identity by merging, this could prejudice the credibility and support of both organisations.
"Furthermore, a wide range of political and organisational philosophies are encompassed by the Democrat/green movement which may not exist comfortably in one party.
"On the other hand, a merged party, a single entity, offers maximum cohesion and pooled resources. The importance of this cannot be overstated: we know from experience how hard it is to wage an effective campaign across the length and breadth of the continent ...
"The main potential disadvantage of the alliance option is that is signifies less unity in the eyes of the public; it is a tactical, looser partnership.
"On the positive side of the ledger, an alliance would be easier to achieve, and a successful model exists. Queensland's Green Alliance brought parties and community groups together in an effective campaign in the recent local government elections.
"An alliance, like a merger, allows a coordinated campaign to be waged. Unlike a merger, it preserves the identity of the participating groups and avoids the trauma of thrashing out a single constitution, name and portfolio of detailed policies.
"Given that we are two years from the next federal election, the passage of time favours an alliance over a merger in the short term. Indeed, an alliance would be a credible and practical step to a merger."