The Greens should hang tough to prosper at democracy crunch-time

The NSW Greens' error was not in adopting the now demonised BDS policy, which in fact properly expresses the party's long-held support for Palestinian self-determination, international law, and human rights, no mater how 'well received' such a stance might be at the time. Rather, by not sufficiently getting out and properly owning such an inevitably controversial position, the NSW party scored an 'own goal' by making itself easy prey for ravenous media to declare them as Bob Brown's 'radical' baggage (while he is okay by comparison). On this score Faehrmann's critique is likely correct when she writes that Byrne did not get enough broader party support, especially from prominent figures supportive of the BDS policy.

Rather than a mere 'media release' upon the state party adopting the BDS policy, a good start would have been a big press conference announcing and explaining it, with BDS spokespeople in attendance to answer specific questions about the global campaign. (Jewish voices within and beyond the Greens also could have actively highlighted that such aims and strategy are not 'anti-Semitic'.) In addition, the participation of any internationally respected figures who support BDS and that were in the neighborhood, such as ANC veterans, could have provided genuine moral support and historical gravitas.

A tonne of bricks was always going to come down on any prominent political party supporting a global campaign that seeks to raise awareness concerning Israel's ongoing abuses of human rights and active blocking of basic services in the Occupied Territories resulting from the illegal taking of land acquired by war following the Jewish state's creation after the 1947 UN partitioning of Palestine. Not even entering into the contested historical minefield (including the question of to what extent UN General Assembly Resolution 181 actually validates Israel per se, seriously questioned here), by sticking to the reality of ongoing abuse the BDS campaign is less 'extreme' than directly responding to the very abuses and violations of international law resulting in a record number of UN resolutions.

Hanging tough, and not 'extreme'

To buckle under the media and political pressure long at boiling point as a result of the BDS saga would not be at all surprising. While Byrne has been impressive in weathering the storm and Rhiannon has probably been wise to keep quiet for now, The new Marrickville Council vote (where only Byrne and one other Green stuck to their original position), Faehrmann's intervention, following statements by former Greens MLC Ian Cohen, indicate there is a serious case of the wobbles in some sections of the party. Understandable though it might be, however, there are worrying ramifications if the Greens are to allow its enemies' coordinated attacks to be so efficacious.

In fact, history and common sense suggest that the precedent for success lies not with capitulation. Leading up to past elections when media-framed scandals around the Greens were on issues like the 'harm minimization' drugs policy and its traditional anti-war position, where the party hung tough in the face of daily attacks its vote not only held ground but actually increased. The Faehrmann line of argument seems entirely unaware of the fact that while it may be unpleasant, there is actually no threat to the Greens vote when conservative media comes down on the party hard. Quite the opposite in fact.

This time with BDS the even hotter issue that supposedly proves the Greens are beyond-the-pale radicals, in addition to the usual right-wing voices, 'Left' faction Labor MPs such as Anthony Albanese – despite likely often sharing the general sentiments motivating the Greens' gutsy position behind closed doors – went feral (writing opinion pieces in The Australian no less, which on this issue is all of a sudden Labor's best friend). Notwithstanding their professed 'moral' outrage, such figures have for some time now been clearly desperate to discredit the electoral threat to inner-city seats that Labor proprietorially claims to 'own'.

The BDS beat-up scandal has served a broader narrative in which the party is deemed 'extreme' from all corners. The result is often petulant but carefully focused attacks on individuals – first Byrne and Parker, then increasingly Rhiannon as the shadowy alleged leader of the party's 'radical' faction. Trying to dismiss the Greens by using the oldest trick in the book (actually the same one the Liberals used for decades to bag the ALP), last Friday AWU leader Paul Howes quipped with a pretentious smirk: "I think that most of the Greens' policies are based on Lee Rhiannon's interpretations of [Marx's] Das Kapital." A cursory perusal of the NSW party's policies by anyone not suffering the feverish effects of childish exaggeration and desire for base political hyperbole, however, will find there is nothing 'Marxist' about them.

The right-wing Union leader has obviously been reading The Australian, where the Greens' NSW Senator-to-be is daily portrayed as a dangerous communist threatening the very fabric of the national polity, before she has even started her term in the Senate. Rhiannon is commonly presented as a threat to democracy rather than her election being evidence of its proper representative health. On her way to Canberra due to a strong Greens senate vote in NSW at the 2010 federal election, she also enjoys overwhelming party support after decisively winning (ahead of Faerhmann, who had both Bob Brown's and much of the media's ongoing support as the more 'moderate' option) a scrupulous pre-selection voting process to become lead upper house candidate. That this longstanding Greens politician may on occasion articulate positions at odds with that of the elite media and political hegemony – but entirely in keeping with NSW party policy – demonstrates a healthy democracy in this country through the presence of a party unafraid to stand up for its principles irrespective of potential controversy and widespread abuse.

Anti-democratic demagoguery vs. local representation

Beyond demonising Rhiannon and ignoring her party and electoral credentials, the extraordinary assault on the Greens as a result of the BDS saga has revealed a broader and very disturbingly selective attitude on behalf of powerful media and political voices when it comes to democratic principles much bally-hood by those very same voices in justifying military interventions elsewhere in the world. If you think a party in Australia has the right to advocate its rigorously developed policy agenda (in the case of the Greens, by way of democratic and transparent internal party processes without equal), then upon attracting sufficient votes to have its say and where possible enact said policies at the local, state, or federal levels of this country's representative democracy, it seems that many prominent figures don't agree.

The most astonishing attack on fundamental democratic principles in this sordid story was when the NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell, threatened to 'sack' Marrickville council if it did not rescind the BDS motion. (Former Liberal Party staffer David Miles even suggested on the Drum's ABC24 incarnation that the Council be sacked irrespective of the immanent vote.) Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd issued his own condemnation of local democracy. Let's be clear. These major party big-wigs openly seek to squash the democratic rights of residents who voted for a Greens-majority Council because the great mainstream political and media power elite have deemed one of this elected body's actions (born of overwhelming 10-2 support) as 'unacceptable'.