page 16

Is The Dream Over?

Most radical political groups have achieved so little for a combination of reasons: first, because they tend to be formed to combat some one particular issue. If this issue is solved immediately (either in favour of the viewpoint expressed by the group-unlikely-or by the responsible authority ignoring the protest and carrying out its original plan), the group is either disbanded or allowed to wither through apathy shortly thereafter. The latter course, which is more common, creates a bewildering array of orginizations, confusing potential supporters and dividing their efforts.

Secondly, those radical fronts which seek to solve more lasting problems by exerting pressure on the governments or agencies responsible usually dissolve into internal ' squabbling, take refuge behind a wall 01 ideology, and expend incredible amounts of energy purging members and slanging spin-off group, the SDS ib a case in point.

The anti-war coalitions,' instead of exerting day-today pressure on the administration, seem content to gather large masses of people once or twice a year in Washington then go home and plan for the next march. This is both useless and absurd: the original purpose of the peace marches was two-fold: to demonstrate the size and solidarity of the movement, and to attempt to locus public opinion on the problem. Within the compass of these aims, the marches were reasonably successful.

In this time of proliferating protest, marches are no longer a novelty and do little good: they seldom demonstrate more than an outward semblance of solidarity and do not advance commitment; they are publicized by the media only if they dissolve into "riots" and this type of publicity retards rather than advances the cause. In the unlikely event that a demonstration causes its target to throw a few concessions to the movement, the result is as likely to be adverse as advantageous. For every participant who is thereby encouraged to fight harder in the hope of further reforms, there are two who go home with immense feelings of self-satisfaction and self-congratulation, effectively go into retirement and have to be radicalized all over again for the next issue.

Yet, every time an issue arises, those "activists" in our midst react by planning u series of marches almost as a reflex action. This is clinging toan out-dated concept, remaining with a familiar form of protest, hanging on to past values. We are supposed to be a forward-looking generation; why then whenever those who rule us do something that incurs our displeasure, do we automatically, machine-like, gather and scream: "March;;? We act more like a generation of pavlovian dogs!

When are we going to realize that the power structure simply does not give a shit for this form of protest! It accomplishes nothing; the) know that it accomplishes nothing, and consequently are only too happy to see us wasting our time in this manner. If they make frightened public noises [unclear: abant] demonstrations and confrontations, it is only as a sort of back-handed encouragement for us to continue.

If demonstrations and confrontations are largely useless, and occupation-type protests (except in extreme cases to create public awareness) are pointless, then what form of action is worthwhile?. In case anyone still harbours a touching faith in the value of public mass protest, then cast a glance back over the anti-Vietnamese War protest history. In six years of mass marches not one fucking thing has been accomplished. A great deal has been thought to have been done at various times, but the war continues, the Vietnamese people are still being killed, the countryside is being systematically destroyed, and the capitalist corporations are still getting rich from selling the means of death. The only "improvement" is that not as many Americans are dying. Wonderful! Kill off the Asians, they wouldn't live long enough to matter anyway.

We have been deluding ourselves for far too long: it is time to begin doing something to bring about the changes we want and need. First, we can stop dreaming about

armed revolution: the potential for it does not exist in N.Z. and will not exist in the forseeable future. There are simply not enough people in this country who are comitted to a revolutionary ethic, and there is no evidence that the number of those few whoare is growing fast enough for any such action to be worth planning for.

By ruling out armed struggle as a possibility, we are left with three alternatives: (i) opting out - which is no solution for the majority and illusory for the minority who try it: there are too many facets of present day society which one cannot escape: (ii) attempting to create a counter culture, which is virtually impossible - any alternative culture must to some extent depend on mainstream society, thus, willingly or not, being influenced by it and sharing in its consequences; (iii) working within and on the fringes of the current political system. Many of us blithely dismissed this in the past as "cooptation" or 4'selling-out"; it may be time to reconsider that haste. Jim Morrison's cry: "We want the world and we want it now!;; is fine rhetoric, but it seems unlikely that the current owners of the world are going to give it to us, and impossible that we can take it by force: our best chance is to obtain it by stealth and deception. Within this context there are many methods that can be used; some may seem to be incongruously conventional, but all deserve to be tried.. Demonstrations, confrontations, alienation, and the pyramids of publicity built on them have created an awareness on the part of the politicans that there are a lot of us out here; voting age reductions have given them a certain sensitivity: it remains up to us to capitalize on this.

This concern with political power may seem irrelevant. Although the government does not control the country, being content to administer it (usually to the benefit of the capitalists - sometimes at their behest) that does not mean that the government does not have the potential for control, merely that it does not choose to exercise it.

One action which is not as useless as it is often thought to be is the relatively simple one of writing letters to Members of Parliament If engaged in often and at length, this may help to produce results, particularly if an election is imminent ( as is the present case) and if the MP in question won his seat by a narrow margin. MPs are conditioned to take heed of this because it is an action associated with the mythical middle-class voter whose name looms large in the lexicon of every politican. Also, letters to MPs do not require postage.

If you are not content to be a spectator at the political forum, then become a participant in the games themselves.

Unfortunately it is not as easy to stack party meetings where election candidates arc chosen as it is to stack a VUW political club meeting. There is less chance of getting a yippic as an offical party candidate in N.Z. than there is a chance of getting an independent, in particular, a yippie independent elected in even the most marginal electorate. City council seats are worth aiming for but parliamentary seats - no. 26 year-old David Shand will be elected in Wellington Central this year with your support. He is admittedly a party man but if you can't get the support of a party yourself you may as well do all you can to support such young politicians. If you support their candidacy they will push your ideas. And don't forget the older politicians — you must realise how bereft they are of ideas. In N.Z. more than anywhere else politicians are approachable-take advantage of this.

There are then, ways we can look constructively at the existing political system. Our present political frame of mind is split between disillusionment and radical action. But we can both be committed to radical action and also rebuild from disillusionment, within the system. In the next few weeks Salient will be featuring manifesto son constructive politics from all political interest groups.

Destructive political action, within the system, can also be revitalised. This is election year and we may as well chuck the National Party out. Those who say there's no difference between National and Labour either haven't looked closely or just can't make up their mind. The main difference, important to us, is that the Labour Party is more desperate for voters and vote-catching policies. Therefore they want us. So let's tell them what we want, then set about getting rid of the National Party.

If you live, or used to live in a National electorate, you would do best to concentrate on that electorate. One student, for instance, used to live in Rotorua, a marginally held scat I his year he is going to leaf through Hansard noting all the parliamentary contributions of Rotorua's buffoon MP, Marry Lapwood. Reprinting this in a leaflet and distributing to certain suburbs of Rotorua is certain to diminish Harry's credibility to near zero. Then during the campaign speeches a few sober, persistent and unanswerable questions should finish the job. In non-uni towns, heckling, demonstrations and even vitriolic criticisms would have the wrong effect. It should be enough to tell the electors, in their member's own words, just what inanity the National Party is up to. If only the people knew the national machine ran on idiocy and corruption, the machine would self-destruct. Let the people know. Tell them.