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.

the forestry issue has become destructively polarised between forestry workers and environmentalists in a way which is not seen in any other sector, and also why the adversarial politics of forestry are quite atypical of union-environmentalist relations.

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?

Katz also writes:

Leftist intellectuals should therefore recognise the distinction between electoral politics and governance. It is a touching feature of the liberal left that they want majority support before their agendas are enacted. I wish to point out that while this may be desirable, it isn’t necessary.

To which I would reply that at some point it is necessary for majority support to be mustered for those agendas, and that one reason for the liberal left’s difficulties in the past decade is that the Keating government did not do enough to try to bring the punters along with it on issues such as reconciliation. To some extent Rudd’s suburban populism and Beazley’s small target strategy can be understood as the historical price we’re paying for Keating’s cavalier treatment of opposition to his agendas.

Are you implying that if David Burchell had disapprobated Rudd’s suburban populism, perhaps Rudd may abjure his suburban populism? If so, I do not think this is a tenable argument.

No. See my response to Mark’s substantial comment.

It is a matter for legitimate debate as to whether Rudd’s stances on potentially wedgeable issues are motivated by electoral realpolitik or are a reflection of a deep-seated authoritarian conservative streak (as argued by some LP posters and by Tim Colebatch on another topic). This seems not to have occurred to David Burchell. But even if one accepts - for the reasons outlined in Manne’s second-last paragraph - that Labor’s strategy must recognise that a decisive section of the electorate does not like or understand policies on national security, indigenous affairs, refugees, etc., which follow from basic tenets of liberal democracy, accountable government, non-discrimination, etc., one can still recognise that this is not a desirable state of affairs, and that one legitimate response to this problem by liberals and the democratic left is to attempt to turn around public opinion on these issues.

Are you implying that if David Burchell had disapprobated Rudd’s suburban populism, perhaps Rudd may abjure his suburban populism? If so, I do not think this is a tenable argument.

And if the above is an untenable argument, what is there to complain about here? At root is a cry in the wilderness that (leftist) intellectuals are quite unimportant in Australian politics. Intellectuals are left to argue the toss among themselves while politics goes on regardless of their concerns and advice.

Perhaps intellectuals may be cheered by a bit of perspective. Pre-1972 the numbers men in the ALP tried as hard as they could to hose down associations between the ALP and leaders of the so-called “new class” of left liberals who had never had a secure place in the political process.

In the event, the ALP victory in 1972 gave the new classes an opportunity to change Australia permanently and in important ways in accord with their agendas.

And although those agendas in 1972 may have frightened the horses bringing about electoral defeat for the ALP, by the late 1970s these agendas were part of the new consensus, and untouchable by Howard to this day.

Leftist intellectuals should therefore recognise the distinction between electoral politics and governance. It is a touching feature of the liberal left that they want majority support before their agendas are enacted. I wish to point out that while this may be desirable, it isn’t necessary.

Reactionaries on the Right, like the fundos infecting the Coalition parties don’t have these majoritarian hang-ups. In fact, many of them hate democracy.

I’d never want the Left to hate majoritarianism. I’d merely observe that majoritarianism isn’t democracy.

One can use anti-majoritarian means to achieve democratic ends.

In my Doctoral thesis I touched on some of the reasons why the forestry issue has become destructively polarised between forestry workers and environmentalists in a way which is not seen in any other sector, and also why the adversarial politics of forestry are quite atypical of union-environmentalist relations. What I didn’t do, but which I have tossed around in my mind both at the time and since, is further explore the thesis that there are specific features of the forestry debate which dispose it to become a “clash of fundamentalisms” on both sides. But that is a matter for another thread.

http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/id28.html

One of Adjani’s points is that ideologues on both sides are addicted to the struggle (and this most emphatically isn’t about the Left, it’s about both sides) and this guy is a prime example.

Having said that - Ambigulous:

May I make some suggestions?
1. The “left� should welcome criticism, as a sine qua non of renovation.

As Paul pointed out in his very first paragraph, it is not about not welcoming criticism, it is where that criticism tips over into some kind of intemperate “everything’s wrong with the Left” version. I don’t see how he could have made it any clearer.