Already this year's 60th anniversary celebration of European peace and love - Eurovision - has pulled off a cunning and super smart move. It has invited Australia to participate. I know, I know, normally accidents of geography would ordinarily preclude the Aussies from entering. Then again, who in 1955 could have thought the contest would eventually end up being won by a bearded lady? As far as I'm concerned, this is a master stroke. And as everyone knows, All That Is Solid ... is the only leftwing pro-Eurovision blog there is, so of course I'm going to endorse this move. Eurovision's audience in Australia is larger than many European countries. Depending on who you take as good coin, between 2.7m and 2.9m viewers down under tuned in to watch Conchita Wurst steal hearts and votes of the Eurovision-voting public. And lest we forget that there was a lovely little skit about Australia dragging itself across the globe and planting itself on Europe just so it can enter. This is brilliant fan service, brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. However, it's pretty clear that it's going to be an anniversary one-off (well, until the 70th, the 80th, the 90th, etc.). The only problem - what happens if Australia wins?
What a sad end to the Sydney cafe siege. The gunman, one Man Haron Monis lies dead, but not before he murdered two others. Thankfully, incidents like this are quite rare in Western societies and when hostage taking does happen, it tends to either be a spur of the moment thing in the commission of a crime or an awful episode in a pattern of dysfunctional family relationships. When people are held to highlight a cause or make political points then it tends to get written off - as this is already being - as the work of a lone oddball. To explain the motives of someone like Monis, one need not be concerned beyond the peculiarities of his own personality. He's one in a million, a fluke, a statistical anomaly. Folks need not lose any sleep. Really? Human beings are social creatures. More than that, from even before our births and regardless of culture, we are constituted by and through social relations. We might make our history, albeit not under circumstances of our choosing, but more deeply what we build of ourselves is a process of working on social stuff assembled by countless interactions. We are legion, for we are many. For that reason, given the irreducibly social (and sociable) character of our being, I am unwilling to accept that people just "flip out" and commit extreme crimes for no reason. People choose to do these things, and choice never occurs in a vacuum. Going by material available on Monis, here was someone determined to court notoriety and assert himself against the world. Following a protracted trial, he was convicted and sentenced to community service for sending "offensive letters" to the widows of Australian service personnel killed in Afghanistan. Like many cyber jihadis, he used social media to disseminate Islamist propaganda and post up shock images of dead children. He also styled himself as a cleric, albeit seemingly without any tie to an established mosque. In his life before declaring himself Muslim, he was a self-styled spiritualist guru with expert knowledge of all-things hocus pocus. From this period dates 47 outstanding charges of sexual assault and impropriety, allegations Monis maintained were proof of the state's campaign to discredit and defame him. Likewise the allegations facing his about his involvement in the murder of his former wife. There are interesting continuities between him, rampage murderers, and pathological Narcissism. First things first, in unpeeling Monis one needs to look beyond the imam's garb, his professed conversion from Shia to Sunni Islam, and indeed Islam itself. The hostage-taking was not about being a Muslim, nor even ISIS. They are but foils for the real star of the show: him. Consider the evidence: the cloyingly desperate attempt to make like an Australian Anjem Choudary, albeit more extreme and tasteless. The framing of impending criminal cases as political persecution and comparing himself with that other self-styled fugitive from justice, Julian Assange. The assumption of a clerical persona can be read as him conferring some kind of Islamic authority upon himself, and the latter - unasked for - association with ISIS another wheeze to accumulate look-at-me points. There are some parallels between Monis and the narcissism of the disgraced child abusing rock star, Ian Watkins. Revealed telephone recordings in court showed the latter to be an amoral thrill-seeker almost devoid of internal life save the desire to repeatedly break every sexual taboo. The public persona fronting a relatively successful rock outfit fed an increasingly reckless and criminal private life in which people and children were foils for his perverted appetite. His celebrity status established him. The narcissism was exercised in his crimes. With Monis, the situation was different. He had no celebrity. He was a nobody who wanted to be a somebody, and it did not matter what the content of his fame was. His self was his political (and religious) object, and he set about a journey into notoriety with a sense of its inflated importance as the destination. Grief, shock, ridiculous claims, and finally a protracted siege were moments of his passage through life. To go from no one to someone in this manner, doing anything and everything to get noticed means matters can quickly run away with themselves. Looking at shooting sprees, a core motivational component is asserting one's self against an indifferent, if not conspiratorial world, by commanding a situation. Too often rampage shooters in America especially plan their killings in advance, leave pre-recorded messages and/or rambling justifications, and commit suicide at the end - either by cop or turning their gun on themselves. From start to finish, the perpetrator is in control. The question of life and death is theirs to determine. The spree begins and ends at the killer's discretion. Monis's seizure of the Lindt Cafe took place in a context where his "celebrity", such as it was, was careening out of control. The sex assault and accessory to murder charges would, in all likelihood, have placed him behind bars. Criminal notoriety is but a fleeting form of fame, unless one is a prolific serial murderer. Taking hostages and flashing a few flags similar to the sort sported by ISIS allowed him, in his mind, to impose his desired narrative on the situation. Challenging Tony Abbott to a live debate and asking for more ISIS paraphernalia to be delivered to the cafe was a desperate go at rewriting his script. Had he survived, the outstanding charges could again be threaded into a narrative of persecution. Perhaps his "heroic" example would have attracted the attention of admirers and maybe a nod from actual jihadis themselves. From prison he could have played the Islamist/terrorist prisoner, as a dangerous somebody official society fears, and crucially an authority for those inspired by the death-laden vision of ISIS and friends. But he has not. The murder of two of his captives however ensures he lives on as a self-styled martyr and a case who will be picked over first by the media, and then as twilight as a case study for academics. As the life ebbed out of him, I have no doubt he felt gratified. Monis is a product of the pathologically narcissistic end of our cultural spectrum. His bedfellows are Anders Breivik, Elliot Rodger, and pretty much every lone gunman-type you can mention. He wasn't forced to take hostages and commit murder. But his actions are consistent with a trajectory he had been pursuing, a trajectory craving recognition and standing. Man Haron Monis is not an outcome of a terrorist/Islamist subculture. He's a culmination of ours.
Gordon Brown's speech on reforming the electoral system for parliamentary elections is overdue, but at least it nails down the government's plans after 13 years of ducking and diving on this issue. Unfortunately, the alternative vote system favoured by Brown may be a slight improvement over the current first-past-the-post system (also known as single member plurality, or SMP), but it is still far away from reflecting the democratic will of the voters. While Dave looks at Brown's motives for making this announcement now, here I will discuss some characteristics of the SMP and Alternative Vote systems, the proportional alternatives and why socialists (whether in the Labour party or not) should favour the introduction of PR.
Those who defend the current set up for Westminster elections (generally speaking, those who have most to lose in the two main parties) flag up three arguments in defence of what we have. Firstly, it's a simple system: the candidate who polls most votes wins. Second, SMP is more likely to turn out stable governments than other systems. As anyone who's a member of a small party will tell you, SMP presents a massive electoral hurdle. Effectively minor parties are locked out of the system. On the other hand, as defenders of SMP point out, this means governments do not have to rely on coalition partners who only command a minority vote. In West and later unified Germany between 1949 and 1998, the liberal Free Democratic Party was only out of government for seven years. The price of their cooperation would have met compromise on some of their senior partners' programme. Thirdly, parliament is made up of representatives elected by constituencies. This ties MPs to certain localities meaning, in theory, they have to adequately represent the interests of their locality to be returned in future elections.
In practice SMP has had a deleterious effect on politics in Britain. It has led to the creation of safe seats, meaning elections are decided by a comparatively small number of marginal seats. These tend to be identified with a socially conservative, relatively affluent, aspirational and upwardly mobile 'Middle England' by party strategists; and policies are designed to appeal to this strata. The likes of the Mail and Express are taken to be their authentic voice. In other words, the outcomes of liberal democracy in Britain is determined by a small minority.
Second the local link is overstated. While it sounds nice in theory, unless one has a rebellious Labour or Tory MP, in the vast majority of cases MPs will vote along the lines dictated by central office and enforced by the whips. Even parliamentary questions (where an MP can raise constituency-based issues) have been undermined by party discipline. You just have to watch an installment of Prime Minister's Questions to see how loyal backbench MPs effectively waste time by asking Brown if he agrees with them that the latest government initiative is the best thing since sliced bread.
Brown's proposals for reform (which will be put to a referendum should Labour win the next election) is couched very much in terms of the continuity it has with the present system. On alternative vote, he says:
The alternative vote system has the advantage of maintaining the benefit of a strong constituency link; allowing MPs to be not simply policy makers, but also community leaders, community organisers, and the strongest champions for neighbourhoods they know and love. But if the people decide to back the alternative vote, it also offers voters increased choice with the chance to express preferences for as many of the candidates as they wish. It means that each elected MP will have the chance to be elected with much broader support from their constituency, not just those who picked them as their first choice. In short it offers a system where the British people can, if they so choose, be more confident that their MP truly represents them, while at the same time remaining directly accountable to them.
Alternative vote was first introduced in Australia in 1918 for House of Representatives elections. Candidates are ranked by voters in order of preference. If one candidate has an absolute majority they win the contest. But if they do not the candidate with the least votes tends to be eliminated and their second preferences are transferred. This process is repeated until a winner with 50%+ emerges (there are variations on the theme - some elections are run that eliminate all but the top two candidates and have their second choices divided among them). While this is fairer and more adequately reflects the political mood of a constituency, it does not address the problem of marginal seats. In fact, the Australian experience has shown it strengthens the already-dominant parties because it favours their existing geographical concentrations of support. Alternative vote, though a slight improvement over SMP, will continue to replicate its problems and do little to combat politics' declining legitimacy.
What's the alternative? Socialists favour the extension of democracy in capitalist societies for a number of reasons. The more thoroughgoing the democratisation of the state, the harder it is for the state to be used as an unambiguous instrument of capital. The greater the habits of democracy are ingrained in a population, the more active so-called civil society is and the less likely wide sections of the working class fall into apathy and despondency. And the more the state comes under democratic control, the greater the pressure there is to extend democracy in the private dictatorships that run the commanding heights of the economy.
This is why socialists should support the introduction of proportional systems - not just because it improves the electoral prospects of small left groups.
Proportional representation comes in all shapes and sizes, but generally aim to express the democratic will of the voting population. For example, the PR system most UK voters will be familiar with is the D'Hondt list PR method, used for the European elections. Here parties present the electorate with a list of candidates to fill a number of available seats. Under the D'Hondt method the list with most votes wins the first seat. Their vote is then divided by two. The next seat goes to whoever now has the highest total, and so on until all the available seats are filled. This following anti-BNP video from the Green's European election campaign explains it simply:
The Sainte-Laguë method works similarly, but divides results by 1.4 and results in less proportional outcomes.The proportionality of a system can and is often distorted by local peculiarities. For instance, the European parliament elects representatives by D'Hondt on a constituency basis, allowing proportionality to be effected by geographical variations in support. One way round this would be to treat a whole country as the only constituency. This is done in Israel, but there is a 1.5% threshold parties have to cross before entering the electoral formula. Elections for The Netherlands' 150 membered House of Representatives is probably the closest to a truly proportional system - it operates with an effective threshold of 0.67% to gain a seat.An alternative to list systems is single transferable vote PR, which is proportional but retains a constituency link. The number of representatives a constituency returns is always greater than one. Therefore voters cast preferences. In the Irish Republic this can be as low as one and as high as the number of candidates. In Australia, STV proceeds by stipulating a minimum number of preferences that need be cast. Seat allocation is then decided by the Droop Quota. This is done by taking the total number of valid votes cast and dividing them by the number of seats plus one, and then adding another plus one to the resulting percentage.For instance, in an example in his 2001 book, Electoral Systems, David Farrell cites Dublin South's 1997 election results to illustrate the Irish STV system. 57,986 valid votes were cast to determine the representatives for five available seats. These were divided by six (five plus one) giving a quota of 9,665. The first seat went to Fianna Fáil, who had won 9,904 (giving them a 239-strong surplus). None of the other parties crossed the threshold, so in the second round votes were distributed according to the second preferences of voters and seats allocated according to these results. Further rounds maybe necessary involving third and fourth preferences until all the vacancies are filled (the returning officer also has the power to eliminate last placed candidates to ensure their second preferences are transferred.Here, proportionality is dictated by the size of the constituency. The greater the number of seats, the more likely the outcome will be proportional.STV PR is not without its problems. As defenders of the Westminster model would point out, the multiparty system in the Republic has not been as stable as the British two-and-a-half party system, leading to criticisms around weak coalition governments and instability. Second, STV PR in Ireland has led to heavy localism as TDs compete with each other to secure election next time round. This at least renders the constituency-link critique by Westminster enthusiasts null and void.These two examples of PR are far from problematic, but are much better from a socialist point of view. It is true they are more complex than FPTP but not prohibitively so. Is it really too much to ask voters to put a cross next to a party list or rank order in terms of preference? Not at all.The constituency link argument is a red herring too. Multi-member constituencies don't have to break geographical links. Many council wards up and down Britain return more than one representative to the council chamber (though often these are not all elected at once). If voters have a problem they want looking into, they have a choice of which member to contact.The strong government argument does not wash either. Only the UK and Barbados use the Westminster system for general elections. European countries use a mix of different PR systems, and there is no general tendency to electoral chaos (the difficulties of the Belgian and Italian party systems owe more to the specifics of those countries than the mechanics that govern their elections). In fact, for all the 'strong government' arguments used to back up the Westminster model it has, as we have seen, engendered a situation where liberal democracy faces a legitimation crisis in the face of mass "apathy" and narrowly defined politics around what plays well in key marginals. Coalition governments at least offer an opportunity for otherwise systematically excluded minorities to get their policies on the agenda.As socialists we, to nick a Brownite soundbite, stand with the many and not the few. But our idea of the many - the working class - is very diverse and riven with all kinds of sexual, racial and sectional divisions, contradictions and interests. If we are to speak to, represent, and infuse it with a consciousness of its common interests we need to favour an electoral system that allows their free play. Neither SMP or Alternative Vote does this. Edit: Good post on why electoral reform is a class issue by Stuart White here.
The dramatic and shocking scenes of the Australian bushfires could not fail to have moved anyone watching them on the news. This piece from Anthony Main of the CWI's Australian section, the Socialist Party looks at the politics behind the disaster.
The death toll from Victoria's bushfires, in south eastern Australia, currently stands at 170 and could rise – this is Australia’s worst natural disaster, much worse than the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983 when 47 people died.
The dead include retired Channel 9 newsreader Brian Naylor and his wife. Dozens more people are suffering from serious burns and smoke inhalation. On top of the tragic deaths and injuries, more than 750 homes have been destroyed and at least 330,000 hectares of land has been burnt. Residents have compared the scenes to the aftermath of a nuclear war.
The bushfire disaster has shown some of the best examples of human solidarity coupled with some of the worst examples of the failure of a profit driven system. Heroic stories of ordinary people saving the lives of strangers are just starting to emerge. One off duty nurse has told of having to administer first aid to burns victims in a makeshift shelter because help failed to arrive.
Temperatures across eastern Australia soared into the high 40’s (degrees celsius) over the weekend. The heat was unbearable in the urban centres but it was like hell on earth in rural areas where one resident described it as “raining flames”. At one stage more than 400 fires were blazing in every part of Victoria and almost 60 fires were also burning across New South Wales.
The drought of recent years, and higher temperatures due to climate change, has led to a marked increase in the amount of bush fires. Victoria has recorded its lowest rainfall levels on record which has meant that bush undergrowth is bone dry. While there is no doubt that the drought has contributed to the bushfires, it is also true that much of the devastation could have been prevented.
The State and Federal governments have attempted to lay the blame for the fires on arsonists. While a few of the fires may well have been started by ‘fire bugs’ the vast majority were a result of the extreme conditions. The question is did the State and Federal governments do everything in their power to mitigate the worst effects of the fires?
For years rural communities like those in Gippsland, Kinglake and Bendigo have been hit hard by cuts to services. It has not just been cuts to health, education and transport but fire fighting and emergency services budgets have also been slashed. There is a severe shortage of doctors, nurses and emergency services staff in rural areas and this cost people their lives in a time of crisis.
At a national level government spending on bushfire research is less than $2 million a year. In Victoria the Labor State government only allocates a measly $252 million a year for rural fire prevention. For a country covered with bush and prone to extreme weather this is totally inadequate.
Cuts and Lack of Investment On top of the cuts and lack of investment in prevention, rural fire fighting relies almost entirely on unpaid volunteers. The Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) website states that the “CFA is one of the world’s largest volunteer-based emergency services. There are around 58,000 volunteer members supported by over 400 career fire fighters and officers and more than 700 career support and administrative staff.”
While the work of these volunteers is nothing short of amazing, the idea that less than 2% of those who fight fires in Victoria are full time professionals is a sick joke. There needs to be a massive expansion of full time professional fire fighting staff. These skilled workers need to be paid decent wages to reflect the important work that they do. Those who do the job on a part time or casual basis should also be paid proper wages.
Many of the lives, homes and natural environment that have been lost could have been saved if proper resources were made available. Blaming arsonists is just a diversionary tactic by the government. The main reason that money is not made available is because, at the moment, decisions are being made on the basis of dollars and not sense. A system based on the short term, and geared to profit, is incapable of mitigating the worst effects of bush fires. In fact capitalism has made this disaster far worse than it needed to be.
That is why if we really want to reduce the risk of death and destruction from natural disaster, it is urgent we fight to put an end to the profit driven system of capitalism. We need a system based on human solidarity, co-operation and democracy, the types of qualities that working people have instinctively shown during this disaster.
