I was merely trying in an admittedly seat of the pants way to measure what most people think has more credibility as a key component of democracy: solidarity or freedom of conscience.

I think perhaps I didn’t explain myself well enough. I agree that for citizens freedom of conscience is absolutely key. However, when we’re talking about elected representatives who have been chosen to make decisions on behalf of the people who elected them, then things are more complicated. In that case, it’s about ensuring that the electors’ will is respected, not the representative, and neither freedom of conscience or solidarity is sufficient on its own.

I was merely trying in an admittedly seat of the pants way to measure what most people think has more credibility as a key component of democracy: solidarity or freedom of conscience.

I’d be happy to entertain an argument that espouses the view that solidarity is more widely respected as a key component of democracy than freedom of conscience.

Much of the world, and I would suspect a huge and growing number of Australians, would count individual conscience, but not solidarity, as a key democratic principle.

That would depend what you mean by democratic principle. Caucus solidarity is based on an agreement to abide by a democratic vote in the first place, and as Liam points out, surely it’s more in keeping with democracy that when an electorate votes for a Labor member they get a Labor member as opposed to Joe Bloggs.

I think that there is a definite argument for the MPs individual conscience in Caucus votes. For example, electors in a left-leaning seat may vote for a Labor MP who is pro gay marriage, and they would expect them to fight for this goal within the Caucus, thus affecting how the entire Labor Caucus must vote. But the price of having a government or opposition party supporting your chosen stance when you win, is having to support the winning stance always, regardless of how you wanted the vote to turn out.

Obviously in representative democracy these kinds off problems don’t have a clear answer either way. They’re competing but valid ways of respecting democracy.

And a useful way of convincing yourself that, because are supremely suspicious of every affirmation (however hesitant or ambivalent) of something like a political value or principle, your own discourse does not itself advance or presume any normative principle.

I utterly agree with your first assessment, Geoff Robinson: “In the hands of the ignorant ‘governmentality’ is a dangerous tool.” The unfortunate part is that it’s all to often the exposure to governmentality that produces the ignorance.

Paul, which other union covers industries/occupations whose work affects/is as dependent on the environment as the CFMEU? It’s one thing for, say, the teachers’ union to get on well with environmentalists; but is it not inevitable that forestry workers operating outside plantations will be (as it were) at loggerheads witth environmentalists?

The best short answer I can offer to that question is to point to the relationship which the Mining & Energy Division of the CFMEU enjoys with the Australian Conservation Foundation over greenhouse issues. The long answer is provided in my Ph.D. thesis.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/10/04/a-tale-of-three-columnists/

I merely point out that nowhere else in the world does anything like the Labor Pledge exist.

Much of the world, and I would suspect a huge and growing number of Australians, would count individual conscience, but not solidarity, as a key democratic principle.

However the adoption of such a [pragmatic] strategy by the Federal Labor Party means that a major source of opinion-leadership is no longer (if ever) engaged in the advocacy and defence of key democratic principles in relation to the issues cited by Manne and Burchell. This leaves a void which must be filled by other actors, and which other actors have attempted to fill, albeit in flawed ways.

I agree with this.

However, perhaps the ALP has never been an absolutely suitable vehicle for the advocacy and defence of key democratic principles.

For example, the ALP has never valued individual conscience over solidarity, as is evidenced by the Labor Oath.

Labor was the repository of the White Australia ideology.

Labor’s labourist ideology has historically asserted an a priori preference of one interest in the economy over other interests.

Labor, especially after 1921, had for a long time a troubled and ambiguous relationship with the concept of property rights.

It cannot be denied that the ALP has shed or is shedding much of this historical baggage. This is one of the legacies of the rise of the new class since the 1960s. But the ALP still has some distance to go before one could say that it is the natural home of key democratic principles.

I am constantly amazed by the failure of genuinely liberal parties such as the Australian Democrats to achieve anything more than a toehold in Australian electoral politics. I believe the failure of these parties is quite strong evidence that Australians don’t have a particularly high regard for the formal aspects of democracy.