Wikileaks party splintering factions
A week is a long time in politics.
In in the last few days the Wikileaks party has undergone seismic changes due to a factional split and calls of hypocrisy, lack of democracy and autocratic control.
A third of the party council have quit, along with one of the candidates.
Four of the eleven Wikileaks party council members quit along with one of the candidates, Leslie Cannold. The straw that broke the camels back: the preferences for the senate races.
One would suspect that the lack of democracy and adherence to their own ideals of democracy and party internal rules would have been noticed earlier. So I suspect that what it is really over, is which other parties Wikileaks would align itself with, and there come the compromises and dealing with other political parties. As a party claiming to wanting to fill an oversight role in the senate they would need to do deals with other parties or just be completely shut out of the game at that level, unless of course they won 30 seats, which is unlikely in the first term at least.
So where does Wikileaks see itself aligned?
Well as a party essentially of protest, the strongest supporters would likely come from the left, third option voters, people who have wavered between ALP and The Greens largely, but have other political affiliations. And her lies the rub, The WA race put them head to head with Scott Ludlum.
If you look at our wonderful supplied info-graphic you will see the lay of the senate table.
The current make up of the senate:
The seats are colour coded to show which party holds it and in a few cases the names of the senators holding seats.
Seats with a dark border are up for reelection this senate cycle.
The first 3 states are where wikileaks party is running candidates.
NSW and VIC
NSW and VIC are quite similar, a reasonably even split between left and right, both have an ALP senator quitting, to run for the lower house. NSW has all 4 ALP senator up for re-election and both have a Wikileaks candidate running, both also have a Greens senator safe for another 2 years. So in both of these senate races Wikileaks will be able to draw support from traditional or wavering ALP voters and not greatly challenge the Greens current standing. Wikileaks might even get a few liberal / nationals voters or even inspire some donkey voters.
The Situation for WA is very different:
Scott Ludlum has his Greens senate seat on the line, and may lose support due to the new possibility for the third option voter, the Wikileaks party. The Greens in WA will likely be facing a backlash over The Greens carbon tax and the double whammy of a new third option party might be enough to send Scott Ludlum out of the senate.
And this is what has got the Green leaning faction of the Wikileaks party upset, along with the way preferences were debated over and then finally selected against the wishes of a significant minority (perhaps even a majority) of the party council and party members. The departing Wikileaks party members are even openly canvassing for Scott Ludlum now against their own former candidates.
TAS and SA
The situation with TAS is similar to SA , the Greens have 2 senators in each state and one is up for re -election.
Peter Whish-Wilson is up for re-election in TAS as Bob Brown successor, and no opposition from Wikileaks party.
Sarah Hanson-Young is up for re-election and no opposition from Wikileaks party.
Interestingly both Greens candidates (in SA and TAS) have double barrel surnames, oh yeah, that’s right a hallmark of inherited money, status and detachment from reality.
What is most interesting is the lack of candidates for QLD, perhaps they are deliberately standing aside.
This reference to the Greens party might make more sense once you consider how close Lesile Cannold is to The Greens. Cannold, the protégée of Peter Singer, a previous Greens candidate who co-wrote a book with Bob Brown the Greens founder and recently retired co-leader. She is effectively one person removed from the founder of The Greens party. Why didn’t she stand for the Greens in the first place? it’s entirely possible she entered the Wikileaks party to collapse it from the inside to prevent The Greens losing votes from their brainwashed masses. She used the phrase ‘white anted’ to attack the Wikileaks party, and of course this is a way of attacking your opponents, accusing them of using your own tactic.
I would not be surprised to see Leslie Cannold standing for The Greens in the not too distant future.
She has all the credentials; academic, feminist with some odd utilitarian ideals and best of all has helped collapse a third option rival from the inside. She has probably used the experience of the Wikileaks party to give her self a political party education.
So for the resigned part staffers and Party council members we can only refer you to the experiences people have had with Wikileaks.org and the whistle blowers who have been badly burnt by Assange; leopards don’t change their spots.
I would say this is the death-blow to the Wikileaks party getting a senate seat, but there are another two long weeks in politics to go.
So our commiserations to those people who put in a lot of effort trying to make a difference by attempting to enter the political system.
Changing the corruption in the political system from the inside is like preaching for chastity in a brothel.
Sean we can’t wait for the rage quit video, post one online and we’ll give you the slab of XXXX that Kevin Rudd promised us months ago, but still hasn’t delivered.
Politics: the lies, the games, the BS!
Since we mentioned a feminist and we were critical, we’ll quote another feminist to offer balance.
I hope this makes sense in context.
You can’t use politics to change politics, just like you can’t use your left hand to scratch your left elbow.
Posted on August 23, 2013, in Australia, deMOCKracy, Education, Law & Government, Melbourne, Politics, Screenshot, The Greens, Victoria, Whistle Blowers and tagged Australia, hypocrisy, Leslie Cannold, rage quit, resign, The Greens, Wikileaks, Wikileaks party. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.
This is the link to the article by Daniel Mathews , called”Why I resigned from the Wikileaks Party”. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/wikileaks-julian-assange .
In essence it is quite critical of Julian Assange, who appears to have a very autocratic modus operandi, while at the same time advocating a democratic inner structure for the Wikileaks party. The resulting contradiction led to problems within the party. However, while Assange can be blamed for some of the recent fiasco, the main problem appears to be the wheeling and dealing itself, which always makes politics a dirty game, no matter how well intentioned you start out. Having first-hand knowledge of the idealism of some of our activist friends, I was very surprised at their involvement in party politics and am not the least surprised that they ultimately had to resign from the Wikileaks party.
Personally, I did not care about the preferences given to Hunters and Fishers , etc. Julian Assange has stated himself, that the change will come from the libertarian right and not the left and he does have a point there, although it is most likely that the change will not come from politics at all and it was probably misguided of him to try and enter party politics
Some of us can also see paralleles to some of the dirty stuff that went on in Occupy Melbourne , with an inner group taking control of the media leadership, while at the same time not really being involved much in the movement itself (like Assange, who wants to control the party, yet does not even turn up (via skype) to the National Council meeting of his own party). The reason for pushing people out of the Media group were that they wanted the main Facebook page to have a consistent, ideologically aligned voice (mainly left-wing), which sounds like party politics to me and was not the point of the Occupy movement. The Facebook page, to this day, continues to be the main face of OM , and yet it is mainly run by two people who live in the United States and continues to miss the main point of Occupy Wall Street : Where does money come from – and where does it flow to. Just thought I’d mention that again, because it has been the main sore point amongst ex-occupiers in the past year which has led to a great deal of division.
The above link to Waca in the main article does not appear to work, but here is a quote from the resignation of several of the National Council members and related volunteers, via Facebook:
“This is the final straw. As long as we believed there was a chance that democracy, transparency and accountability could prevail in the party we were willing to stay on. But where a National Council member begins openly subverting the party’s own processes, and asking others to join in a secret, alternative power centre that subverts the properly constituted one, this is not an acceptable mode of operation for any organization but even more so for an organization explicitly committed to democracy, transparency and accountability.”
Secret alternative power centre? Subverting the properly constituted one? Democracy, transparency and accountablity? We’ve been screaming about it for 12 months and the very people who would not listen or refused to get involved or even outright attacked the whistleblowers, defending the hi-jackers, have now a similar experience in the Wikileaks party. What goes around, comes around , I guess. If you refuse to learn the lesson the first time, you will have to go through it again.
At least the Occupy movement is not a party