anne's dispatches from sydney

...

Here is a segment from the "Anarchist Age" published by the Melbourne-based Anarchist Media Institute. It discusses an issue that I have been thinking about- the fact that Mark Latham's diaries expose how fundamentally destructive the political party is for the full development of the human. I think this is one of the most tragic stories of our time- because the people who end up leading our society are these twisted individuals who gave up their idealism in a party deal a long time ago.

IMPORTANT? Latham's diaries are important not because of the real and perceived insults, the insights into the machinations of the Labor Party or the roller coast ride through the mind of a man who believes that his thoughts and feelings are the catalyst that is needed to change Australian society. They are important because Latham has inadvertently lifted the lid on the limitations of parliamentary rule and representative democracy. The feeling among many Australian that the parliamentary process has failed to reflect their thoughts and feelings and deal with their wants and needs, is reflected in an increasing number of people's attitudes to both their parliamentary representatives and the electoral process.

The failings that Latham has attempted to highlight are not just failings of the Labor Party, but the failings of all the political parties involved in the parliamentary game. Parliamentary democracy is based purely on faith; every 3 years people give signed blank cheques to their parliamentary representatives to represent their hopes and aspirations in parliament. The person they have elected can do exactly the opposite to what they promised and the long suffering elector can do nothing about it until the next election when they can repeat the whole charade by putting their faith in another parliamentary representative who is not legally accountable to the people that put them into office.

The central problem isn't the calibre of the man and woman who represents us, or the political parties they belong to, but representative democracy itself. No wonder so few people in so many countries fail to take a few hours out of their lives to cast a ballot to elect a bunch of parliamentarians to represent them. The problem facing elected rulers around the globe is one of legitimacy; falling participation rates highlight that representative democracy has little if any to do with democracy rule of the people, by the people, for the people. Latham for all his ideas has never been able and continues to be unable to grasp the idea that the former Dr. Jim Cairns was able to grasp, that the problem lies with the parliamentary process not with individuals or the political parties they belong to.

It's time that serious thought was given to what institutions are best able to deliver democracy in a world where real power seems to lie in the hands of a decreasing number of transnational corporations that dictate how citizens can live their lives in sovereign nation States.

Venting our spleen and impotently pissing in the wind, like Latham does in his diaries, may be good for the ego but it doesn't raise alternatives like limited parliamentary mandates, citizen initiated referendums, recallable parliamentary representatives and direct democracy people making decisions about the issues that effect them and electing or appointing delegates to coordinate those decisions on a local, regional and national level, as serious alternatives to a system that many Australians believe is democratic in name only.

posted by: anneinchaosland at 17:17 | link | comments |

I've realised that I need to be an amoeba rather than a rigid box. (i love saying random things like that) -I want to be adaptable rather than opinionated.

I just can't believe how closed- minded I have been over the last few weeks- really negative about what I judge to be peoples' bureaucratic, non-participatory way of doing things; and setting up a block when confronting them about it - but my attitude is exactly what perpetuates their behaviour- judging other peoples' politics in exactly the way I hated other people doing it to me when I first got involved... What a waste of the experience that I have built up!!!-

Bitterness and judgementalism-when they exist-  tend to trump all of the other amazing things that one gains. People need so much SUPPORT to flourish as effective activists- they need to be listened to- not told that I totally disagree with their ideas... I guess being self- righteous is a protective measure in an unfamiliar environment. The best thing a foreign activist can do is to listen, to try to understand the context, and to tell stories and initiate dialogue where there are diverse ways of seeing things.

posted by: anneinchaosland at 14:22 | link | comments |

Now I understand why North Americans always would talk about convicts when they asked me about Australia.

The reason is that they are working from their own understandings of their realities. The fact is that the influence of the puritan religious settlers  in  North America is profound. Reactionaries of all stripes, including 'Catholic' Jansenites, and many puritan protestants settled what is now Canada and the US. (Also utopian idealists- but that is not what I'm talking about)

It means that Catholicism in Quebec is particularly disapproving of the body- because that is what the Jansens were like- and hence there has been a great reaction against this attitude. (ie people's main stereotype of catholicism is that it is reactionary and anti- sex); I went to a sociology post-doc presentation about a study here that showed that people who identify as "Catholic" on the census have rapidly changed their behaviour relative to the Church since the 1960's (-Much more than other Catholic regions of the western world)- he traced it to the local handling of the Papal encyclical "Humanae Vitae"- and the condemnatory behaviour of local priests towards couples who used contraception. Now, Catholics have the same number of partners in their lifetime, same  rate of de-facto relationships, and same divorce rate (50%) as people who identify as "no religion". People have a perception that the commitment required by the Church is something that is distant to their own understandings and hard to apply to their own lives- 

Reaction breeds reaction- so that's what you get.

posted by: anneinchaosland at 15:02 | link | comments |

Its hard to understand a place when you haven't lived there all your life- I just can't work out the mood here in Montreal. Or maybe I just can't work out MYSELF and how I jarr with this place sometimes.

I am accustomed to living in places like Sydney where there is a deep-seated anxiety, where people are extremely busy, and where government scare- tactics have traction among most suburban inhabitants. I am accustomed to noticing symptoms of bigger malaises, like racism or consumerism, which make me think about our broken society - and I become motivated to change things and be involved in activism.

However in Montreal, I am not as motivated by my surroundings- there is an attitude that I can only interpret as complacency (and perhaps even irresponsibility)- where people are doing frivolous things like rollerblading, going to art galleries and other pointless aesthetic events, and being immersed in their immediate realities- their relationships with their friends and lovers...

[dont they know that we all hafta BE VERY SERIOUS?]

All the evidence seems to suggest that I am the one with the problem and it is really a healthy society- but I can't help thinking that Montreal is a bubble- where they can all congratulate each other for being so tolerant- when they are so privileged-

Perhaps it is something to do with a conversation I had with activists at a party last night- where Rachel was talking about how most people feel that their ethical domain of power and leverage is in their individual actions- "How I relate to that underprivileged person", etc. - Whereas my ethical domain of power and leverage that I feel responsibility for is the BIG PICTURE- and hence I seem to under-react at the SMALL PICTURE-  we might see one tree getting cut down and not really care- whereas another person (such as my sister who was upset when our neighbours were pruning a liquidamber) does; likewise, we may not respond to the single homeless person, but we want to solve homelessness IN GENERAL.

Yet is there a problem with having such a large domain of ethical judgement? Does this abstract political attitude tend towards dehumanisation, -ignoring individual people who my daily actions impact on- and hence to utilitarian (the ends justify the means) and unethical behaviour?

That is a hard question. It's something that really would challenge my attitude- which I feel has become increasingly divorced from the everyday to the extent that I do not feel a great duty to my family and friends hence perhaps do not prioritise spending time with them.

[what is that poem about seeing the whole world in a grain of sand? Is that related to this? Is it a resolution of the dilemma between the big picture and the small picture?]

posted by: anneinchaosland at 19:52 | link | comments |

I am in a chess cafe around the corner from me called "Pi"- (they do seem to be obsessed by greek letters in the wannabe intellectual parts of North America) with bright red walls, and lots of people (many francophones) intently concentrating, whilst slightly unusual music plays-  at the moment the music is a cross between a marching band and heavenly voices singing long notes.

It is a nice atmosphere... I'm here at my computer, and I'm trying to still sort out enrolment stuff. I have a hot chocolatey drink -the weather has only just begun to get chilly. ("br, br!" as the tags on this computer code say!)

Tonight I hosted a dinner spontaneously- for Erika and Kathryn- twin sisters who I met in Detroit- on the "Road to detroit"- hence Cameron, who is hosting me at the moment, knows them too. I have ran into them several times- today in a portuguese supermarket- where I was buying a big tub of natural yoghurt and some coriander seeds, and some capers.

I cooked a really interesting curry- with cumin, curry powder, coriander seeds, mustard seeds, cinnamon stick, chilli flakes, ginger, garlic, onion, olive oil, salted fried eggplant, carrots, pureed tomato,  chickpeas and of course red lentils, as well as coriander, yoghurt and lemon as garnishes. (Victor says its a "Martha Stuart" domestic stage that every newcomer to a city goes through- I dont even know who martha stuart is!)

It tasted quite sweet- a VERY COMPLICATED taste- with about 10 different aftertastes - nevertheless tangy and nice.

posted by: anneinchaosland at 01:26 | link | comments |

yesterday I decided to climb mt royal- with a friend of a friend- Colin is a friend of Jess's (my friend from first year engineering at Sydney Uni- who I ran into in June at the end of my last exam- I talked to Jess for about five hours about South East Asia in Wentworth Cafeteria last June after my exams) - they both met in Singapore whilst on exchange there.

So we scrambled up the mountain where the mud trails show where other people have slipped. There is nice deciduous maple forest here, with the leaves light green filtering the sunlight through . It is so nice to be in the fresh air, steaming from the rain. This mountain is very important in Montreal. It and the river define the centre of the city. You can see the wild forest canopy through the gaps between the glass skyscrapers. It's an interesting juxtaposition.