Democrats should heed Lawrence advice

In the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, Carmen Lawrence wrote that "Democracy is failing if the majority are alienated from politics". Carmen rightly points out that membership of political parties is comprised of less than 1% of Australians and that these people are not truly representative of our diverse community. Political hacks are unique beasts indeed.

Carmen has passed on some great advice to her fellow ALP members. But the wise words need to be heard by other parties, most notably the Australian Democrats.

A brief summary of some of the events leading to the downfall of the Democrats follows and should be read in light of Carmen's perfect conclusion for the ALP:

"If these members are to make a contribution, factional power and patronage must be relinquished in the interests of ensuring members a more adult role in the party. Being told what to do and think is humiliating, and most thinking
Australians won't stand for it.

In my time (1996 - 2003) with the Democrats I've experienced the highs and lows that afflict any political organisation. But the one thing that used to separate the Democrats from other parties was the unique democracy that was entrenched into the constitution and party processes. Every member had the opportunity to attend party meetings, nominate for executive positions or stand as a candidate. Each member would, in turn, be able to vote for each of these important roles in a secret ballot without being limited by factions or coerced by consensus.

It was these processes, these rights and responsibilities that brought party members together and ensured the success of a minor party. The membership was the Democrats greates asset and democracy was its greatest tool.

The fall of the Democrats can be traced back to the subsequent erosion of these rights and responsibilites. When democracy becomes a sham, the peasants will revolt. And so they did when, under Cheryl Kernot, the Democrats negotiated the major industrial relations reforms and left their principles behind. This blow to the party was second only to the infamous GST sell-out.

But these two factors were not the catalysts, they were the effect of smaller, less conspicuous acts of riding rough-shod over the membership. Not the least of which was the dismissal of the Western Australian Division, including the expulsion of some 14 high-profile members, including a former parliamentarian. These were good people caught up in, what some have claimed to be, the injustice of a kangaroo court.

The rebuilding of the Division and the subsequent appointment of Andrew Murray as the lead Senate candidate in 1996 was the culmination of years of unresolved power-struggles between the membership, the WA heirarchy and the National Executive. The unwillingness of Lees and Murray to admit the GST decision was wrong saw many members (including high profile former parliamentarians) walk out the door.

When the membership decided to use their voting power to hand the leadership over to Natasha Stott Despoja (one of the vocal opposers of the GST deal) Lees and Murray were cornered. During the campaign, Natasha's supporters had taken heart to her promise to "Bring the party back home to the members". However, Natasha didn't stand a chance and was covertly and publicly attacked by her party room opponents, her leadership ability was questioned and systematically depleted.

The growing membership unease was fueled by the party room tension, and eventually we saw Lees spit the dummy when she was about to be hauled through a disciplinary procedure. Ironically it was the same system that she had used previously against another member. Lees quit the party and Murray served the ultimatum that led to Natasha quitting the leadership.

The fall out was enormous and resulted in a flood of members leaving the party in disgust. My own attempt, with the aid of other signatories, to have Murray disciplined was hampered at every turn. The party's Secretary refused to refer the legitimate complaint to the National Compliance Committee (NCC) claiming that documents had not arrived (despite sending them twice) and that it was not in the best interests of the party to proceed.

A similar complaint lodged by Queensland members against Senator Cherry met the same fate. Yet a complaint by Murray supporters against myself made it past the gatekeeper and was promptly dismissed by the NCC without even calling for my response to the charges.

Membership of the Australian Democrats fell to less than 2000 at one point, and in Western Australia it fell below 270. Only with unprecedented stacking of the division (via a special $5, 3 year associate membership) did the party manage to avoid de-registration in WA.

The results of the 2004 Federal election have been felt throughout the Party. But while some party hopefuls are pressing for a return to their democratic membership roots, others, are either oblivious to the demise or continue to suggest navel-gazing strategies.

Recent calls for Natasha to return as leader have been unfulfilled. And who could blame her after what she has been through. Perhaps if Murray was pushed out the door she might reconsider. In the meantime it looks like Lyn Allison will be handed the position. None of the usual membership vote, just a deal amongst the remaining members of the party room. How many members are going to deny the single contender the job? I wish they would.

If only Carmen would defect to the Democrats, her wisodm might be enough to lead the party back into a chance for survival. But I like Carmen, and I wouldn't wish the Democrats on her. I hope she sticks around long enough to make it back into shadow cabinet and perhaps even the Lodge.