The Left must have the courage of their convictions

At the launch of his leadership bid in New Lynn, David Cunliffe was handed a bunch of roses by a supporter. He held them aloft and proclaimed in a hesitant, unsure-of-himself kind of way that: "the red rose is the international symbol of socialism!”

The mainstream media seem unable to entertain the idea that David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson might actually be honest in their critique of neo-liberalism and the economic orthodoxy. By extension it seems that they believe that socialism is a defunct ideology in 21st Century New Zealand. But in ideological terms, the history of the New Zealand labour movement is relatively typical of its counterparts in other Western liberal democracies. It is a history of socialism. It’s rise, it’s dilution and it’s near death.

The First Labour Government was a truly socialist government, and is the benchmark of democratic socialism in New Zealand. But with the collapse of the post-WWII economic boom, social democratic parties found it increasingly difficult to enact further socialist reforms due to the restraints they placed upon themselves within the capitalist framework. This led to the economic liberalisation and financial deregulation of the 1980s and eventually the Third Way agenda under Helen Clark. These historical trajectories have divorced the Labour Party from its socialist traditions and its grassroots support base. Voter engagement has plummeted. Political apathy and cynicism has never been higher among working class New Zealand.

In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and considering the climate crisis, peak oil and resource depletion, New Zealand is ready for its next ‘big change’ moment.

Evolutionary socialism: The First Labour Government
The evolutionary socialist school of thought has been the dominant and only viable socialist framework since the collapse of the USSR and the moral failures of violent revolutionary communism.

Democratic socialism was founded upon the belief that to achieve social gains, one must work within the democratic system of Parliament. Gradualists, as they were known, including the Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein, believed their vision was inevitable because of the qualities of the democratic system itself and the truth of their ideas.

Many social democratic parties were formed across the Western world to utilise this democratic approach. The New Zealand Labour Party was established in 1916. From this early period of its history, Labour broke free from the communist movement to pursue a social democratic agenda; in 1925 a membership pledge was signed to affirm the Party’s commitment to democratic constitutional processes of governance. Yet it was clearly a socialist party; this is shown by its 1922 election manifesto which describes the Party’s key aim as the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. When Labour was elected to Government, with Michael Joseph Savage as Prime Minister and Peter Fraser as his ministerial workhorse, it enacted a wide range of socialist reforms including legislating compulsory trade union membership and passing the Social Security Act 1938, which effectively provided welfare cover from ‘the cradle to the grave’. The welfare state was expanded and entrenched under the premiership of Peter Fraser.

The second and third Labour governments continued down the same path of evolutionary socialism; egalitarianism became a mainstay of New Zealand politics from both right and left governments up until 1984. This was due to the entrenchment of social democratic principles in politics by Labour governments.

The death of social democracy: Rogernomics and The Third Way
Social democratic parties in the late 20th and early 21st Century have been embracing neo-liberal economic policies to fit within the framework of capitalist democracy.

As Dr Ashley Lavelle, an Australian political scientist, has pointed out, the solutions to the world’s problems that are being put forward by social democratic parties barely differ from the solutions of their conservative and liberal counterparts. Furthermore, the fundamental reform plans that they put forward in the 20th Century "to challenge entrenched power and privilege or redistribute the wealth have disappeared"*. 

Lavelle notes that the primary cause of the death of social democracy is the collapse of the post-war economic boom so that the return in the 1970’s of low economic growth led to the removal of the economic base used by social democrats to enact their social reform. This reform relied upon high revenues and incomes to reduce inequality and raise living standards without undermining capital accumulation. This reality required Governments and therefore social democratic parties to “remove the constraints on capital” and to create opportunities for business*. Social democrats were forced into this approach, as these were the boundaries set by economic democracies, which was the framework in which social democrats were pursuing their socialist goals.

Both David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson have pledged
 to repudiate the 'Third Way'

In the New Zealand context, it was the fourth and fifth Labour governments that implemented both the initial market liberalisation and the more moderate Third Way agenda that followed. By implementing this approach of neo-liberal policy, Labour has faced significant political consequences. They have suffered major electoral setbacks as a result of voters’ discontent with their neo-liberal economic policy and inability to stick to manifesto pledges.

Another major issue that is affecting social democratic parties is a decline in membership. This is an issue for all parties in the 21st Century but there is evidence that social democratic parties have lost members specifically in response to capitalist entrenching policy. This disconnects parties with their own history and the ideological base which gave them the mandate to exist in the first place.

The Third Way agenda of Helen Clark failed to address environmental degradation, carbon pollution and resource depletion. Centrist social democratic parties like the current Labour Party are unwilling and ill-equipped to tackle the underlying problems of our capitalist economic system.

Can Labour, on the back of the democratisation and re-invigoration of their party, redefine 21st Century politics in New Zealand by bringing its traditional values to the fore, while at the same time modernising it's policy platform?

Eco-socialism: democratic socialism in the 21st Century
Eco-socialism, which is an ideology that has roots as far back as the mid 1800s*, has the potential to become a dominant ideology in the 21st Century. Eco-socialism draws on both the ecologist and socialist opposition to capitalism.

Ecologism is founded upon the basic reality that there are natural limits to growth as we live on a planet with finite resources. This is a complete contradiction to the structure of capitalism that promotes never ending economic growth and labels environmental protection and social equality as “external dis-economies"*. Eco-socialists assert that the world is interconnected and that the economy is based on the health of the environment and those living within it.

The Greens have led a change in the political climate and
ensured that eco-socialist ideas are firmly on the agenda

It is evident that eco-socialist ideas have been gaining traction in the Western world, especially since the Global Financial Crisis. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has over the last decade lead a change in the political climate and ensured that eco-socialist values and solutions are firmly on the agenda in this country. While no longer radical in tone and appearance, the Greens champion a future economy and society that is far from the status quo.

But it's no longer just the Greens that are talking about transformative change; Labour leadership front-runner David Cunliffe, and to a lesser extent Grant Robertson, have also been articulating a vision that is starkly at odds with the capitalist orthodoxy.

Cunliffe's rhetoric in speeches such as 'The Dolphin and the Dole Queue' and 'Get your invisible hand off our assets!', represents a kind of thinking that is remarkably similar to prominent eco-socialists and the Green Party's co-leaders.

The clean tech revolution can build resilience in our economy, while protecting the environment and under the right settings could ensure full employment for our people. The scale and pace of change that we require is even greater than the situation that the First Labour Government faced. Harnessing a revolutionary ideological base combined with a democratic approach to fulfillment, the eco-socialist movement proves that socialism is a relevant ideology in the current political climate.

The real test lies ahead
For New Zealand's progressive leaders, both Red and Green, the real test lies ahead. If they follow through on their bold rhetoric and abandon the weak social democratic agenda, then the First Labour-Green Government could be as historically significant, world-leading and revolutionary as the First Labour Government that was sworn into power over three-quarters of a century ago.

While some in the media are probably right in that many see the word 'socialism' itself as an "instant turn-off"*, that does not mean that the ideological underpinnings of the candidates and the movement that they are seeking to lead won't have a huge effect on the outcome of not only this election, but also Labour's electoral platform for the next general election.

Its a no-brainer that New Zealand will remain a mixed economy, with the private sector playing a large role in our economic future. For example, both Labour and the Greens favour market incentives and price signals to address certain economic and environmental problems. But the time has come for the Left to reassert the fundamental values that built this nation.

Radicalism has for a long time been seen among the media as both a cardinal sin and a sign of electoral oblivion. But with the economic and environmental crises that engulf the world, and the massive skepticism of many people towards the political establishment, there are so many issues that require radical solutions. It could well be just what's needed to get disenchanted voters to turn around and listen.

The Left faces a host of challenges, not least of which is the courage of their own convictions. It seems that they themselves are aware of that. In the words of soon-to-be Labour leader David Cunliffe:

"We must also have leadership that has proven it can stare down vested interests – because make no mistake, the beneficiaries of neoliberalism will not give up their privilege quietly."*


Post by Jack McDonald

---

* Ashley Lavelle, The death of social democracy: political consequences in the 21st Century (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited), pp. 1-2

* Lavelle, The death of social democracy, p. 2

* Bradley J. Macdonald, ‘William Morris and the vision of ecosocialism’, Contemporary Justice Review, Vol.7, No.3, 2004.

* Bradley J. Macdonald, ‘William Morris and the vision of ecosocialism’, Contemporary Justice Review, Vol.7, No.3, 2004, p. 287

*Jessica Williams, 'It's just a jump to the left...', http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Its-just-a-jump-to-the-left/tabid/721/articleID/37768/Default.aspx, Radio Live, accessed 09/09/2013

*David Cunliffe, 'David Cunliffe', http://thestandard.org.nz/david-cunliffe-2/, The Standard, accessed 09/09/2013

Shearer needs to do better to win back the Māori seats

David Shearer's reshuffle of his caucus was a bit of a mixed bag. There were positive changes but the renewal didn't go far enough. The decisions to promote David Clark and Phil Tywford were good ones; both are talented MPs who have a lot to offer in Parliament. I accept that they needed a change in their education spokesperson but Chris Hipkins doesn't really seem like the best replacement. It has also been noted that his purge of David Cunliffe and his supporters will probably led to even more disunity within the Labour Party. Charles Chauvel predicted this in his valedictory speech on Wednesday.

From my perspective their lack of change in their Māori caucus line up was disappointing. The only Māori MPs in his shadow cabinet are Nanaia Mahuta and Shane Jones, who has a front bench spot waiting for him pending the Auditor General’s investigation into his dealings while Immigration Minister. Shane Jones is exceptionally intelligent and the best orator in Parliament, but does represent a conservative Māori perspective that is at odds with younger generations. Most of his time recently has been spent attacking environmentalists and Green MPs. He is a big supporter of extractive industries that produce few jobs and negative environmental conditions while locking us in to a carbon dependent economy. Labour needs more diversity to counteract the 20^th Century approaches to economics that Shane Jones represents.

Where’s Louisa Wall? She’s been left on the back benches. Both her and Moana Mackey are very intelligent and hardworking MPs and should have positions in Shearer's shadow cabinet. They along with Metiria Turei and Denise Roche represent a new generation of Māori politicians in Parliament.

The other disappointing factor was that Parekura Horomia still has the important Māori Affairs portfolio. Horomia is by all accounts an excellent electorate MP but I don’t think that he should continue in the Māori Affairs role while being on the back benches. This is a stark contrast with the Greens and their co-leader Metiria Turei who is a very effective Māori Affairs spokesperson. If David Shearer wants to achieve his goal of winning back all of the Māori seats then for a start he needs to appoint a strong frontbench spokesperson for Māori Affairs. Nanaia Mahuta would probably be best suited for this in the current Parliamentary lineup. At the moment Hone Harawira, Metiria Turei and the Māori Party MPs dominate the discourse in Māori politics. Labour has struggled to produce a post foreshore and seabed platform for the Māori seats and I think this is in large part due to Horomia and his involvement with that confiscatory legislation.

Labour needs to look the future of Te Ao Māori. Too many of our people, especially us taiohi, don’t vote. I stood in Te Tai Hauāuru last election for the Green Party and it reinforced my view that many, maybe most, young people around my age are disconnected from our politics. Only 59% of the enrolled population in Te Tai Hauāuru voted in 2011. This is at a time when we have an expanding youth vote in Māori communities. It is sometimes hard to see what politics offers for us, especially for the many of us that live in poverty with low wages and few employment opportunities. Incremental change is not inspiring and not good enough in these times of severe economic hardship. We need vision, we need engagement and we need action. It’s time for Labour to thoroughly repudiate Rogernomics and the confiscatory treaty policy of Helen Clark. If David Shearer can do this then he might have a chance at all the Māori seats. Until then he’s dreaming.

Free advice: framing the fundamentals

It’s fashionable to comment on and critique Labour Party strategy. On Twitter this morning Lew Stoddart added his thoughts:

(the) NZLP need to find ways to inspire the same public enthusiasm in other areas as we saw for marriage equality. It can be done. Framing matters.

Well, it’s hard to disagree with that. However, Craig Ranapia and Giovanni Tiso argued that framing is a secondary concern when the “picture inside is crap” and when “the party has nothing to communicate”.

Without wanting to cop out, I agree with both views. Framing is important, but not possible where there is nothing to frame. Having said that, I think we’re missing the point here. Framing does not have to be understood in terms of policy, but on a more basic level.

Essentially, Labour has failed to draw a meaningful contrast between themselves and National. National stands for cutting the deficit and, well, so does Labour. Labour wants to target beneficiaries and, well, so does National. National wants to boost employment and, well, so does Labour.

David Shearer needs to position Labour against National on the fundamentals. Yes, Labour can stand for cutting the deficit, but that idea needs to be presented from a left wing perspective. For example, Labour will grow our way out of the deficit. Shearer must then juxtapose Labour’s position against National’s ‘let’s cut our way out of the deficit’. An unsophisticated example, I know, but it illustrates the point I’m trying to make.

Helen Clark drew an interesting contrast between Labour and National in (I think) the 2005 election when she told Breakfast, and I paraphrase, that the National Party doesn’t stand for anything except power. It was a powerful contrast (ignore the pun). Clark painted National as unprincipled and willing to push divisive policy for the sake of power. On the other hand, Labour was painted as the party of principle - the party of Working for Families and so on. Framing on that fundamental level matters, framing policy comes second. Labour might be running on a different policy platform, but it makes little difference when the party stands, or is seen to stand, for the same goals as National.

In August Kelvin Davis wrote that “It's like they're more comfortable being ignored than criticised”. Correct: Labour fears being seen as different on the fundamentals. They don’t want to risk offending the orthodoxy. To use the above example, they fear being seen as opposed to deficit reduction – or the orthodox approach to deficit reduction (i.e. cuts). The party fear being seen as a party for beneficiaries. However, if the leadership had more political nous they would frame themselves as the party for the poor. Instead, in a clumsy attempt to inoculate himself against beneficiary sympathising David Shearer delivered the infamous beneficiary on the roof speech.

Unless Labour reframe themselves on the fundamentals, there’s little reason to vote for them. In this respect, Labour can take their lead from John Tamihere. This may seem counterintuitive, but Tamihere has taken a lead role in attacking the government’s “shonky economics”. On Q&A last week Tamihere explicitly rejected neoliberalism. Tamihere contrasted himself against National on a fundamental point – the economy.

At the moment Labour looks like the National Cabinet in red ties – I don’t want to vote for that and I suspect most on the left don’t want to vote for that.

Flavell swings behind Tuhoe

The Maori Party are coming down strong on the, for want of a better term, Urewera issue. From RNZ:

The Maori MP for Bay of Plenty is talking to the Tuhoe tribe about taking a new claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, arguing the police 2007 raids in Ruatoki breached the Treaty of Waitangi.

The member for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell, says the Crown should be answerable, particularly for the way people were innocently caught up in the actions - and for those who've now had charges against them dropped.

The Maori Party MP says his caucus and Tuhoe are looking for more than an apology.
He says he and his colleagues have talked about compensation, given some people have had to bear the brunt of criticism and the stigma associated with the raids.

Mr Flavell says the issue is so big his party is looking into asking for a commission of inquiry of some kind.

At the conclusion of this saga a commission of inquiry will be mandatory – whether the remaining defendants are found guilty or not. I think the option of civil suits is closed in this instance, I certainly don’t say that with certainty though. Te Ururoa has highlighted two options for some kind of relief/accountability (a commission of inquiry and the Waitangi Tribunal) and other options exist as well including the Independent Police Conduct Authority. On another note it amazes me that Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and the then Police Minister (Annette King I think it was) have managed to escape criticism for their role in approving the raids and subsequent legal battle. Surely the buck stops at the top, and this went straight to the Prime Ministers Office.

I expect to see Hone Harawira dive all over this issue. Tuhoe is one of Maoridom’s staunchest Iwi, if not the staunchest, and is Mana’s for the taking. However, if Hone remains quiet and leaves the issue to Te Ururoa Tuhoe may not tag along with Mana so willing. Tuhoe people have long memories. This is where Mana needs someone like Annette Sykes and her skills as a lawyer and as a wahine toa.