The Nature of Politics.
Evan Ling, 1996

The subject of politics is more than just the theory of government. It has been suggested that "the personal is political", that almost every act or thought has political implications. Such a view would imply that the human creature is by its nature a political animal, risking confusion between social interaction and politics.

Yet there have been many philosophers and social theorists who have imagined a future society which could be described as apolitical. This is the main common ground between anarchism and some concepts of Marxism (Sargent, 1996: p. 146, 147, 176). The two ideologies differ greatly in means, but have some commonality in the intended ends.

"Politics" could be defined by the theories, policies and actions of government. The influence of the political system of government is extended into all areas of life by the actions and forces of government. Activities which are not "politics" become relevant to politics or tainted by politics, and become "political".

Thoreau (1994) argued that government was merely "a tradition", existing because of the expectations of people. "Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage" (Thoreau, 1994: scr. 3). The main role of government, by this thinking, is "to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity" (Thoreau, 1994: scr. 2). Those who rely on the tradition of government to achieve power and other benefits are actively seeking to extend government - and thus political meaning - to all areas of society and social interaction.

So there are two contrasting groups of belief systems, disagreeing on this matter of the very essence of the nature of politics. Politics may be a necessary and natural component of human society. At the extreme end of this group are those who conceptualise "society" and "politics" as virtual synonyms.

At the other extreme, in the contrasting group, are those who believe politics to be the mystification of a deadly and corrupt abuse of power. This group seek a society in which no form of government is necessary. Such a society would require people to be ethical enough to live peacefully by voluntary co-operation (Microsoft, 1994).

Representative democracy - Australia's current form of political organisation - is an example of an ideology which is supported by the adoption of the first mentioned of these two belief systems. This system involves candidates for public office competing for favour from the voters (Sargent, 1996: p. 43). This competition, with its dramatic debate, controversy, advertising and exposure from the eager, sometimes sensationalist, media, aids the extension of politics into wide regions of society.

Democracy encourages citizen involvement in decision making more than most other forms of government (Sargent, 1996: p.42, 43). Such features as the competitive voting system, the opportunity to become involved in political parties, and the public discussion of politics involve people in politics and the process of government.

Democracy provides some equality, at least amongst those who are afforded the right to vote (Sargent, 1996: p. 42). Each vote is of equal value, so each person's opinion may be considered to be of more-or-less equal value.

Democracy also requires some freedoms or rights, such as some rights of education, speech and assembly, so that matters may be discussed as an act of participation in the political process. The actual nature and extent of these freedoms is much debated, and there is no clear consensus or total guarantee of particular rights (Sargent, 1996: pp. 62-69).

Against these perceived benefits are the criticisms of representative democracy:

"[The] practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau, 1994: scr. 4).

Democracy has not always been characterised by fair treatment of minorities or of oppressed groups. Black Americans remained slaves for many decades after the American Revolution brought democracy to the USA. Australian Aborigines continued to be denied basic rights and continued to suffer under genocidal policies for many decades after Australia became democratic. Women, despite actually being a majority group, remain with less power, lower wages and, arguably, lesser rights for many decades after receiving the right to vote. To some extent these and other injustices and inequities remain in our representative democracy.

From the anarchist perspective, governments and politics are not just unnecessary, but destructive and exploitative. Leo Tolstoy wrote that "the modern state is nothing but a conspiracy to exploit, but most of all to demoralize its citizens..." (cited in Woodcock, 1963; p. 209).

To the anarchist, the ideal society is one where power is equally shared - where personal power is no longer an issue in decision-making. On the other hand, anarchists believe that this society should also provide both personal security and the opportunity for self-realisation. Toscano (1996: p. 3) describes an egalitarian society where the individual is allowed to develop in their own way and at their own pace with the support of the community, and in freedom from economic dependence on other individuals.

Baldelli (1971: p.10) suggests the abolition of each politically imposed law, rule and regulation, one by one. Each would be suspended for a trial period. When it had been shown that no harm had occurred, the law would be abolished entirely.

Few writers provide rigorous criticisms of anarchism. Sargent (1996: p. 181) is content to point out anarchism's numerically minor nature. A strong criticism centres around the anarchist utopia's requirement for a high ethical standard amongst its members. It could be argued that such a high general ethical standard would make any political system utopian. The anarchist answer is that power corrupts, and that at least an anarchist society would greatly limit the potential for harm from any one unethical individual who might otherwise find a position of power.

Politics is described by Jaensch as the process by which conflict is resolved, decisions are made about what direction a social group should make, and those decisions are implemented (1992: p. 1-3). By this definition, even an anarchy would not avoid politics. Inevitably there are differences between people, and decisions to be made about the distribution of resources and the resolution of conflict. Anarchism encourages a diversity of opinion as an ideological necessity, so the very nature of anarchy would lead to a greater general involvement in politics. Demystified and egalitarian, such politics would be very different from the politics of the Australian nation-state.

Politics in Australia is characterised by what could most charitably be described as an uneven application of political theory. The actions (that is, laws passed and administered) and rhetoric of those involved in government involve the distortion of both terminology and perception of reality.

The Family Law Reform Act 1995 is an example of this unevenness or distortion. The rhetoric is that the reforms of the Family Law Act replace concepts "imply[ing] ownership of children by [their] parents" (Fisher, 1996: pp. 9-10). A reasonable corollary of this rhetoric would be the recognition of unmarried people under the age of 18 years1 as persons with the right to contribute to decisions which affect them, and the right to some control over their own circumstances.

In fact, the Family Law Reform Act 1995 does not affirm the rights of children, and the policies of the Commonwealth government have not been in "the best interests of children" as the rhetoric claims (Fisher, 1996: pp. 9-10). The "information provided by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department" itself speaks of resolving "differences between parents concerning the day-to-day care and future upbringing of a child" (my italics), "[p]arents should agree about the future parenting of their children", and so on (Fisher, 1996: p. 10). No explicit mention is made of resolving differences between the ideas of parents, and the aspirations or expectations of children themselves. There is no requirement to seek the agreement of children over parenting plans.

At the same time as introducing this reform in "the best interests of children", the same government is removing the possibility of children being granted legal aid in Family Law matters. This leaves the funding of such legal representation in the hands of parents, who are exceedingly unlikely to voluntarily fund the representation of another party (such as a child) in legal proceedings. This also places barristers and solicitors in a probable conflict of interests between the party they are engaged to represent and the party who pays the bills.

It has been argued that this incohesiveness and lack of ideological development presents opportunities for strongly purposed individuals and groups to influence the policy and practice of government. Sullivan (1994: p. 158) cites feminist writers who argue that the "uneven", "paradoxical" and "erratic" nature of the state produces weaknesses in the state's defence of patriarchy and capitalism. Such weaknesses are opportunities for feminists who work in politics and bureaucracy.

This pragmatic approach, said to be characteristic of Australian feminism, has led to the rise of "official feminism" (Sullivan, 1994: p. 153). This term is used to describe the entry of feminists into the bureaucracy and political machinery of the Australian state. Feminists have built a strong alliance with the Australian Labor Party, and have gained influence within the Australian Labor Party. This alliance may have forestalled such groups as the Australian Women's Party.

This strategy has had a number of apparent successes. Australia has a large number of government-funded women's services, and a feminist policy machinery which is unmatched in other countries. Rather than a single women's affairs ministry, Australian governments tend to have women's policy units in each department and a co-ordinating women's affairs unit in the Office of the Prime Minister. This is claimed to allow the examination of policy decisions in all departments (Sullivan, 1994: pp. 54-55).

An alternative view is that this lack of a dedicated women's affairs ministry and department leads to a fragmentation of women's policy, and that numerous small units are more easily reduced, limited in influence or dismantled.

The alliance with the Australian Labor Party also has disadvantages. The Australian Labor Party of recent history has displayed the ideological vacuum of self-perpetuating pragmatism. Party-political feminists have been drawn into the corruptive influence of power and into the male ideologies of the major parties.

Policy directions which are superficial in their acknowledgement of feminist aspirations can be deceptive. The ALP has claimed to be addressing gender equality by the policy that 35% of their parliamentary seats are to be occupied by women by 2002. In the same national executive meeting that sanctioned this policy, Dierdre Tedmanson was moved from the first position on the South Australian ALP senate ticket to third position. Immediately the opportunity to address the under-representation of women by placing female candidates first and second on a state senate ticket was thrown aside. The clear indication was that the 35% target - not to mention national executive support for state branch decisions - was to be placed well behind other priorities (Walsh, 1994; p. 20).

It could be argued that the 35% goal is merely a device to provide the ALP national executive with greater power to interfere in the pre-selection process. The national executive decision stated that the national executive had granted themselves the power to "determine the outcome in any public office preselection progressively between now and the year 2002" (ALP document quoted by Walsh, 1994; p. 21). Even if the 35% goal were genuine, it is an obvious question to ask why the goal should not be 51%, given that this is the fraction of the Australian population who are female.

Australian politics illustrates another serious flaw in representative democracy other than the oppression of minorities. In multi-cultural, multi-political Australia there is a diversity of political opinion. Few voters would agree with any political party's platform on the range of social and political issues, and there is a great deal of cynicism regarding the political parties and political system (Jaensch, 1992: p. 22). Social movements such as feminism have a diversity within themselves, with differing opinions and a large number of small groups. The major parties maintain their hold power because they control a juggernaut of influence, and because they provide a cohesive rhetoric rather than a cohesive practical ideology beyond pragmatism and self-preservation.

The major political parties in Australia illustrate Thoreau's contention about government as they attempt "to transmit [themselves] unimpaired to posterity" (1994: scr. 2).

Footnote.

1Thus the term "child" is defined for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended) in sub-sections 63F(2) and 63F(3) (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992: p. 1474). Alternatively, Order 23 Rule 1 of the Family Law Rules defines a "child" as "a person who has not attained the age of 18 years" (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992: p. 6073).

Bibliography

Baldelli, G., (1971), Social Anarchism, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

Commonwealth of Australia (1992), Australian Family Law Act 1975 with Regulations and Rules, 13th ed., North Ryde: CCH Australia Limited.

Fisher, S. (ed.), (1996), "Family Law Reform Act 1995 (Adapted from information provided by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department)" in Christian Counsellors' Association Newsletter, Vol. 14, No. 1, Summer 1996/1997, pp. 9-12.

Jaensch, D., (1992), The Politics of Australia, South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd.

Microsoft Corporation, (1994), "Proudhon, Pierre Joseph" in Microsoft (R) Encarta '95 (CD-ROM), Redmond: Microsoft Corporation and Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.

Sargent, L. T., (1996), Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis, 10th ed., Belmont: Wadsworth.

Sullivan, B., (1994), "Contemporary Australian Feminism: A Critical Review" in Australian Political Ideas, ed. G. Stokes, Kensington, NSW: UNSW Press, pp. 152-167.

Thoreau, H. D., (1994), "Civil Disobedience" (first published 1849) in Library Of The Future (CD-ROM), 3rd ed., Irvine: World Library, Inc., title 40.

Toscano, J. and Libertarian Workers for a Self-Managed Society (1996), "Anarchist Question And Answer" in Anarchist Age Weekly Review, No. 200, 1996, p. 3.

Walsh, K., (1994), "Non-practising preachers" in The Bulletin, September 30, 1994, pp. 20, 21.

Woodcock, G., Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963.