page 13

The Politics of Frustration

Bruce Jesson

Over the last few years the demonstration has developed into the main form of left-wine activity in New Zealand.

This has partly been a direct imitation of radical activity overseas; the demonstrations of the early '60s were consciously modelled on C.N.D. activities in Britain. It also represents a re-activation of the Left after the passivity of the fifties.

But mainly the demonstration has emerged as a result of a change in the nature of the Left. For although the Left has always been a middle-class force in New Zealand it did at one time have Trade Union support. The activists of the Left could immerse themselves in Trade Union and Labour Party activity and feel that they were achieving something.

Having lost this Trade Union base, and with the Labour Party no longer even pretending to be responsive to left-wing influence," these activists have had to find something else to do. They now demonstrate.

The result is very strange. Most left-wing organisations have retained their political identification with the working-class; yet their own members belong to the fringe middle-class, and their main activity (the demo), and the issues they concern themselves with (peace, civil rights, race relations) reflect a middle-class point of view.

Consequently, any political coherence the Left ever had has fragmented. The old class-struggle rhetoric remains, but clearly has no relevance to any current activity. No-one seems very sure as to why they are demonstrating or why they choose the issues they do.

Which is not to say that demonstrators don't try to defend themselves. Usually they say that they are trying to pressure the government; but the only observable effect that pressure from the Left has is to move the government to the Right. Or else the demonstrators say that they are trying to stimulate public opinion; but all that a demonstration docs to public opinion is enrage it.

At a more naive level demonstrators argue that they "have to do something". In other words a demonstration is a convenient outlet for the frustration a radical develops in a society that ignores individual opinions. And for anyone with a protestant conscience it is a handy way of making a stand (the moral aspect being an end in itself and political effectiveness unimportant).

Of course there isn't much point in making a stand, or venting frustration, if it goes unnoticed. Publicity, usually justified as a means to an end, becomes an end in itself. It is funny how the Left, which rejects so much of conventional society, accepts its standards of success. If some tin-pot little outfit makes the headlines it starts to imagine that it is big-time, despite a lack of active members or mass support.

Yet publicity doesn't, as Leftists imagine, indicate success; it precludes it. If a group wants to get into the news it has to do newsworthy things—and this means publicity stunts, not genuine political activity. It is unfortunate for the Left that it is the news media that decides what is newsworthy, because this gives it an influence over what the publicity-seeking Left does— and as a result it does some pretty stupid things, like walking from Auckland to Wellington.

The news media is after all more interested in news than views. A demonstration is news, but the views it expresses aren't. Nothing coherent in the way of opinion ever gets across to the public, which makes the whole exercise rather pointless as a demonstration is supposed to be an expression of opinion. In any case the public is unimpressed by radical opinions heard first-hand; it is unlikely to be more interested when it gets them second-hand through the papers.

Nevertheless the activists of the Left are single-minded in their quest for publicity. They have to be single-minded because there are too few of them to do other things as well. Organisation, such as it is, becomes geared to creating publicity. People are organised into attending meetings and demonstrations, not for their own good, but to give an impression of strength. Speeches are made to the reporters rather than to the audiences. Agitation among actual people is shelved in favour of shaping an intangible public opinion.

From a left-wing point of view even this seems an improvement on the inactivity of the fifties. Yet there is in Fact nothing more passive than a protest. A protest never affects anything; it is never intended to affect anything. It is only an expression of disapproval, and while this may appeal to the moralist it shouldn't satisfy the political activist.

The activist is supposed to be interested in political change. He obviously isn't going to get it by protesting about Vietnam or sports tours to South Africa. Equally obviously there is plenty of room for political change in New Zealand. At the moment the Left hasn't any ideas on what to do about it. If it wants to be taken seriously it had better start producing such ideas.

And if it doesn't want to be taken seriously it should at least be honest and stop pretending to be political. If the Left is only interested in acts of conscience or venting frustration it would be better of joining the Methodist Church or the Hell's Angels, thus leaving the political stage clear for those who take politics seriously.