Ken, by electorialism, I am referring to when a political party sees
itself exclusively engaged in getting candidates elected. The
Reform Party is one such animal, along with the Democrats and
Republicans.
Since money buys elections in capitalist politics, there is a tendency
to water down the politics for money. If a party is exclusively
engaged in this type of political action, it has a very conservatizing
effect.
Contrary to what is pushed as the ONLY political action available in
society, electorialism happens to be a very marginal and weak exercise
for people looking for change. There are other much more effective,
and strength building ways, to build political power.
A political party offering an alternative should be principally
non-electoral in focus. If not, professional politicians looking
for 'power' of some sort, begin to run the party. This is always a
problem in any organization. People like to have themselves running
the show. Electorialism is like throwing gasoline on this negative
aspect of human psychology.
Electorialism is also focused on lobbying behind the scenes with the
power players. Non- electorial strategies try to use other pressure
than just delivering the votes or money to the politicos.
Foremost in effectiveness, is to actually physically try to remove the
politicans from out of public offices directly to the jails they might
need to be in. This is an advanced form of non-electoral strategy,
that is not often availabe. Still, it's what people often shoot for
in a more ideal environment.
Education and militant demonstraion are two other methods short of armed
action, that have very important roles to play. Chomsky is noted for
his ability to educate, but not so noted for his ability to mobilize for
militant demonstration. And this is the case with Nader also.
Martin Luther King, and the tens of thousands that built the civil
rights movement, are positive examples of a non-electoral strategy in
action. In the case of MLK and supporters, the electoral avenue was
closed off, and therefore, there was no real alternative to what they
did.
Unfortunately, The Greens see that carrot dangling before them, and it's
important not to react like a donkey would. Many Greens are becoming
convinced that the Party IS something now, strictly based on supposed
success at electoral activity. This is a delusion.
The Greens will be something real, the moment that they can mobilize
hundreds or thousands to demonstrate in the streets for issues of real
importance. After November, will this be the case? I would
suggest, that there is nothing in the past record of Ralph Nader to
show that this is where he is leading the Greens to.
Or the labor movement.
Check out the material from off another list that has some further
comments that touch on this issue. Good luck with moving your Party
in the right direction.
The other stuff is below your letter, Ken.
Tony
______________________________
Ken wrote-
As a Green party organizer, I don't want to see the Greens become
another Democrat or Republican party (only poorer) either. I intend to
change the way politics is done in this country and build a lasting
"alternative" to the current system. I interested in what you said and
would like to know what you mean by "electorialism" and "non electoral
political party". Regards,
Ken
______________________________
More comment from a Green not supportive of electorialism-
Orton has considered himself part of the green movement since 1983 but
has never joined any Green political party. He has been critical of the
formation of Green parties, which he feels have accommodated themselves
to the continuation of industrial capitalist society. For example, this
is part of what he has written on the relationship between the green
movement and party in Green Web
Bulletin #64:
In no place, where green parties have been established,
was (a) deep ecology accepted as the philosophical basis of
unity; and (b) a political plan of implementation for deep
ecology worked out along with steps for the transformation
of industrial society.
Instead of this, a series of 'green-sounding' principles
were adopted by green parties, like the so-called "four
pillars" of the German Green Party: ecology, social concern,
grass-roots democracy and non-violence.
Such principles could be endorsed by party members, because
of their ambiguity, and then disagreed with, when actual
issues came along which a green party had to take a
stand on. If there is no agreement on philosophical
fundamentals, then there will be no agreement on important
practical issues...
Essentially, green
"party" politics everywhere concentrated on electoral
success. This was interpreted to mean coming to an
accommodation with industrial society - and its political
institutions, like the parliamentary electoral system.
Politically it meant the politics of green dilution, that
is, promoting shallow ecology. In this process most
"fundamentalists" like Rudolf Bahro in Germany, who saw the
primary task of green party politics as spreading the
consciousness that industrial society was finished, were
forced out. Bahro, when he left 'Die Gruenen' said, "At last
I have understood that a party is a counterproductive
tool..."
... For a green party
not to be a paper organization and to have substance, a
green party must:
- Lead theoretically,
which means party members sharing, understanding, and
expressing in their work a common deep Green philosophy.
- Be practically
involved in issues and sum up this experience in
policies/programs, around which the public can be rallied.
- Develop new structures
which are independent of the market and the state and the
parliamentary road, which are radically democratic, give a
sense of the embryo of a Green society, and which are
accountable to the alternative movements.
Since the above was
written, the German Green Party, which has been a model for electoral
Greens everywhere, in coalition with the German social democrats,
actively supported the NATO bombing of Kosovo. A fundamental question
is: How does one participate in electoral politics without being
absorbed into the existing industrial paradigm of values?
The speaking invitation
is an example of the open- mindedness to different ideas of the party
Greens organizing the Convention. "I look forward to an exciting
intellectual exchange between Greens," said Orton. "Earth destruction is
intensifying overall, yet green and environmental thinking in Canada is
becoming more marginalized.
Why has the 'meaning' of life become survival and denial for so many
people in Canada? As has been said by Saral Sarkar, a fundi German Green
originally from India, who has written a book on German Green politics -
the Greens are the first social movement in history to 'promise' a lower
material standard of living if successful. This is not the stuff, in the
short term, that electoral victories are made of. Greens should not see
their role as brushing the teeth of the industrial dragon. We, as
Greens, need to put forth alternative visions. The present Earth-eating
industrial capitalist society everywhere commodifies and destroys Nature
and undermines human communities. All of us, from whatever diverse
cultures, need to see that we share our identity with the natural world
and all its animals and plants, as a necessary part of ourselves. This
means to move away from human self-centeredness and chauvinism. We are
talking about a spiritual transformation in consciousness. Could this
Convention in Ottawa signify the start of something new for Greens in
this country?"
For further information, contact David Orton at (902) 925-2514
|
