Debating about debating

Karl Bitar, National Secretary of the ALP, today gave a woeful account of the ALP’s woeful 2010 election campaign to the National Press club. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explore every flaw in Bitar’s logic, so I will focus my ire upon one particular failing that he admitted that the ALP suffers from; a lack of internal debate within the ALP. Both Bitar and Howes have tried to link the lack of debate within the party to the tyrannical reign of King Rudd. While Rudd was undoubtedly a control freak, the lack of debate within the party’s root cause is structural.

When examining the structure of the ALP, there are theoretically a multitude of opportunities for robust and lively debate on policy issues. There are sub-branch meetings, State Council and State Executive meetings and an annual conference. As an attendee at these meetings, however, I can assure you that they are plagued by the rhetorical equivalent of tumbleweed. Debate never occurs, because all involved are aware that somewhere in a dark back room, the decision has already been made.

The skill of oration has always been a fundamental talent required to succeed in politics. It is a skill developed through a rigorous trial by fire, with the speaker endeavouring to persuade the sceptical. Not even history’s greatest orators such as Malcolm X or JFK would be capable of swaying an ALP State Conference, however. The vast majority of delegates at State Conference have allegiances to one of the major factions, with a clear expectation that all will toe the factional line on a given issue. Every issue on the conference agenda has been discussed and decided prior to the first speech taking place. This all encompassing power, exercised largely by a handful of Union officials, drains the fire from the bellies of all delegates. The power exercised by the union extends not only to the voting decisions of delegates, but also to who will speak on a motion.

State conferences are designed to be forums in which the “rising stars” of the particular faction are groomed in preparation for their ascent to Parliament. As Cavalier stated in Power Crisis, promotion within the factions and the union is determined largely by loyalty rather than talent. For this reason, those selected to speak at Conference are not necessarily the most skilled orators but rather the lobotomised, faithful work horse. As delegates listen to the spluttering and clichés of the chosen few, their eyes begin to roll back into the back of their head. The merits of the arguments advanced are never questioned, for the only delegates with the gumption to rebut or speak against a factional acolyte are the crazy bearded lefties, remnants of an age passed.

Re-invigorating the ALP and instilling a spirit of debate is not possible within the current party structure. The power to control outcomes and groom the next generation of clones is too valuable for the unions to throw away. If there ever was a debate on the restructuring of the power within the ALP, the outcome would be pre-determined and the speakers pre-selected. Reform, I fear, will only be possible when the party is in such disarray that the power being fought for is no longer sought after.