Time for the Greens and the Democrats to merge

United, the two parties could generate significantly more electoral support, argues Richard Denniss IN a last ditch attempt to save the sinking ship, the Democrats decided to direct their preferences to the Family First party ahead of the Greens. While the final Senate results will not be known for some time it seems likely that the result of this deal will be to scuttle the chances of a number of Greens senate candidates and deliver one, possibly two, Senate seats to the new conservative Christian party. While an at times bitter rivalry has existed between the Greens and the Democrats as they jostled for similar supporters, on a fundamental level the two like-minded political parties had, until this election, worked constructively to achieve similar goals. Not any more. Not only have the Democrats harmed their own political prospects by facilitating the emergence of Family First, they have weakened the potential voice of Greens in a Coalition-dominated Senate. It should not of course come as a surprise that the Democrats have once again made a decision that harms their own interests and their supporters. The GST deal and their refusal to unite behind Natasha Stott Despoja are clear evidence of a self-destructive tendency that, by definition, cannot last for long in politics. In 2001 the Democrats managed to win four seats under Stott Despoja’s leadership. At the weekend’s election they won none; it was their worst-ever result. When the four senators elected in 2001 face the voters again in 2007 the party, except perhaps for Stott Despoja, will in all likelihood vanish. It is time for the progressive voices in Australian politics to unite. Australia needs more from the remaining Democrats than three years of squabbling with the Greens about who is the original environmental party. John Howard now has a larger majority and virtual control of the Senate. More than ever before, dissenting voices need their champions in the federal parliament. Of course there will be resistance from some Greens and Democrats to talk of such a merger, but it is the voices of Australians concerned with progressive politics, not the voices of those concerned with protecting their parliamentary patch, that must be listened to. Natasha Stott Despoja, Andrew Bartlett and Lyn Alison have much to contribute to the Greens, not least the three Senate votes they hold and the formal party status that would follow the merger. Andrew Murray will no doubt resist such moves but his opposition should be seen only as an indication of its desirability. As one of the architects of the Democrats’ support for the Coalition’s GST and industrial relations reforms, not to mention his petulant refusal to support his party’s leadership, Murray’s views about what is best for progressive politics in Australia should be politely ignored by all. A merger between the Greens and some or all of the Democrats senators would not be without difficulties. Differences in background, approach and policy are real and would need to be addressed. But such issues are the bread and butter of politics. Successful political parties focus on what they agree on while the unsuccessful focus on their internal differences. John Howard’s political success has more to do with his capacity to keep his opponents disagreeing with each other than his vision for a better Australia. The Democrats and the Greens both share a passionate conviction that Australia needs to strive towards making itself more just, sustainable and peaceful. More than one million Australians agreed with those convictions on the weekend, and perhaps a million more would follow suit if the squabbling and the backstabbing could be replaced with compromise and a unified vision. Australia is a rich country. We can afford to implement a progressive vision but it must first be clearly articulated and sold to the public as a necessity. In 2004 Australians received a collective pay rise of over $30 billion dollars. In other words, the four per cent growth that John Howard is so proud of means that as a nation we have an extra $30 billion to allocate to our priorities. John Howard doesn’t care what we do with all that growth. He doesn’t care that we choose to spend it on mobile phones that take photographs and flat screen TVs that use more electricity than the old ones rather than invest in our children’s education and our public hospitals. Only a growing economy matters to the PM, not where that growth is directed, or who benefits from its growth. Progressive politics can be defined by its belief that the benefits of economic growth should be directed to where they are needed most. Such politics needs people with vision and passion to identify a better future and sell that vision to a population that has grown cynical of political promises. Bob Brown and Natasha Stott Despoja have a proven capacity to inspire and motivate the Australian people. John Howard shifted the political landscape once again on the weekend and he is now on more comfortable ground. His opponents can sit back and wish it were otherwise, or they to can put the hard work into transforming the political landscape as well. A merger between the Greens and the Democrats would require compromises to be made and personal differences set aside. That is how the Coalition has maintained its discipline and its pre-eminence. It is time that progressive politicians in Australia did the same thing. Richard Denniss is deputy director of the Australia Institute. He was formerly Natasha Stott Despoja’s chief of staff. Photo: Andrew Jeffre