Kicking the watermelons

Andrew Jackson

With the polls once again showing that nearly 20 per cent of the 
electorate will vote away from the Coalition/ALP duopoly, the 
boots are out for the new third-party force that threatens the 
cosy political balance. The anti-Greens campaign reached a new 
ridiculous low last week as Deputy Prime Minister declared the 
Party was "a home for the people who in the 1950s would have 
joined the communist party".

Mr Anderson's scare-mongering continued: "You ought to be very, 
very aware, and very, very afraid.

"They are watermelons, many of them green on the outside and 
very, very red on the inside."

Bob Brown, Greens Senator from Tasmania, shrugged off Mr 
Anderson's comments as a "greens under the bed" scare campaign. 
He declared that the Greens were an "avocado" party — green 
inside and out.

Then, appearing to throw a spanner into the debate Mr Brown added 
that he was not a communist, but a "reconstructed Presbyterian".

The Greens Party arose out of the environmental movement and for 
many of its members, while also holding progressive views on many 
issues, the environment remains the primary political cause.

But there are many others who were attracted to the greens as an 
alternative progressive force, and for whom economic social 
justice issues, including workers' rights, are the main agenda. 
These are the "watermelons" Deputy PM Anderson is referring to.

Many of these Greens Party members recognise that our current 
capitalist system — dominated by Australian big business and 
transnational corporations — is directly responsible for the 
crises in our society, both social and environmental, and call 
for a major overhaul of our political system.

But ultimately the Greens Party platform does not call for the 
socialist transformation of society; but for a society built on a 
"kinder, more people-friendly" capitalism.

This differs fundamentally from the objectives of the Communist 
Party of Australia and its view that the socialist transformation 
of society is necessary to overcome the profiteering, the 
environmental vandalism and the social divisiveness and 
deprivation of the monopoly corporations.

So Mr Anderson is wrong. Those who joined the Communist Party in 
the 1950s to work for these objectives would join the Communist 
Party today, not the Greens.

However, despite those differences, we share many common aims in 
trying to improve the conditions of the people, protecting the 
environment, fighting for peace and justice.

Holding the Senate to ransom

With a "best possible" outcome in the Senate after this election, 
the ALP and Liberals would hold 32 seats each, the Democrats 4 
and the Greens 8. To achieve this, the ALP would have to outpoll 
the Coalition on a two-party preferred basis in every state, and 
the Greens would not only have to replace all three Democrats up 
for re-election, but also steal one seat from the Coalition and 
Meg Lees and Brian Harridine's nominated successor as well.

A success of such magnitude for the ALP is by no means assured, 
meaning that a government formed by either major party will most 
likely require the votes of the Democrats plus Greens to pass 
legislation.

However, recent history shows that on many issues the ALP has 
voted with the Coalition to enact reactionary legislation that 
the Greens and Democrats have both opposed — such as the "Border 
Protection", "Mandatory Detention", and "ASIO Powers" Bills; 
increasing the cost of a medical prescriptions on the 
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and the "Gay Marriage Ban".

The ALP has also voted alongside the Coalition to defeat numerous 
progressive policies that the Greens and Democrats have put 
forward, including many environmental initiatives.

To say, as the Coalition and ALP do, that the minor parties will 
"hold the Senate to ransom" is deliberately deceptive. The major 
parties have a vested interest in maintaining the two-party 
system, and have shown in the past they have no qualms at working 
together to crush any threat to that system. They have the 
financial backing of — and are completely beholden to — big 
business, and have corporate mass media as their mouthpiece and 
propaganda machine.

It will take more than just a vote for left and progressive 
candidates at the upcoming election to break the two-party 
system.

It will require long-term dedicated activism to bring about a 
people's movement, built by hard work and the financial support 
of workers and progressive people, and by the mass-distribution 
of media representing the people's voices and interests — such 
as The Guardian.