Whether we like it or not, politics permeates our lives and to an extent, determines how we can live. At some time or another, most people access and are affected by education, health and transport services. We pay for accommodation, either with rent or a mortgage, and sometimes we or others build the houses we make our homes. We buy electricity and water, or even generate it and collect it ourselves, and we pay for roads, sewerage and waste services. We talk on the phone, read books and newspapers, listen to the radio, watch television and use the Internet to make contact with others, find out information and be entertained. We make decisions about the sort of food we want to eat and, if we eat out, where we dine. We visit arts and sports venues to experience music, theatre, visual arts and sporting events and we participate in physical activities ourselves. We make decisions about who we love and who we want to marry, if we do, and how many children we have and when we have them. If we are paid to work, and earn enough, we usually contribute taxes. We often decide beforehand what we want to happen to our bodies once we are dead, and some of us would like the opportunity to decide how and when to die, in the event that our quality of life is compromised by disease.

Regardless of how little respect people currently have for politics and politicians, the decisions that are made by our elected representatives affect almost every facet of our lives. Those same politicians are also responsible for making the big decisions about the sort of future we can look forward to as a result of their approval of activities that are dramatically altering the environment and the atmosphere that sustains us. David Byrne in Bicycle Diaries¹ puts it this way:

“I believe that politics is, besides being pragmatic, social and psychological, also an expression of a wider surrounding context. That includes everything that might affect what people feel and do – music, landscape, food, clothes, religion, weather. Politics is a reflection of the streets, the smells, what constitutes eroticism, and the routine of humdrum lives just as much as it is a result of back-room deals, ideologies, and acts of legislature.”

For the very reason that politics pervades our existence so comprehensively, politicians must ensure that the decisions they make are above reproach. Openness and accountability must be at the core of the decision-making process, as must clear and sound principles. At the foundation of all this must be the greater good, not individual benefit. The back-room deals referred to by David Byrne and to which we have become so accustomed have no place in this sort of decision-making and neither do political donations from large corporations or individuals who would like the ear of government to do their bidding.

The philosophy of individual freedom and the right of the individual to which the Liberal Party and other so called “conservative” parties and independents ascribe so much importance has resulted in the inability of politicians to view the world and the decisions they make in a holistic way. This in turn has wide ramifications for the neighbourhoods we live in on a small scale and the environments that sustain us on a larger one.

Such individual freedom is not to be confused with the personal choices people make in relation to how they live their lives. Actions resulting from the sort of freedom championed by the Liberals and others can, and do, have huge impacts on the environment, on communities and on society as a whole. On the other hand, the impacts resulting from choices people make make about their own lives in relation to things like marriage, abortion and euthanasia are negligible, on the wider world at least.

The cynicism felt so strongly about politicians has been on a steady increase and stems in part from unprincipled decision-making and the self-interest that is apparently corrupting some, if not much of the decision-making process. People feel that they cannot trust politicians when those politicians appear to lack consistency. It ought to be quite laudable for a politician to admit they were wrong and change their stance due to a change of heart and/or because new information comes to hand. It is another thing altogether for a politician to go back on a commitment simply because it will lead to a greater possibility of re-election, or a highly paid job in life after politics.

As long as politicians and political parties are more attached to hanging onto power rather than making sure that there are policy outcomes leading to the long-term, greater good, lack of vision driven by self-interest will continue to steer decision-making. It will not be possible to look after people and the Earth in a nonviolent and inclusively democratic way if we do not change the way we do politics.

The campaign leading up to the next federal election is my second as candidate for Eden-Monaro and thirteenth overall. If the mark of success is winning, I have only “succeeded” three times out of thirteen; in 1997 for the 1998 Constitutional Convention on the ticket Greens, Bill of Rights, Indigenous Peoples and in 2004 and 2008 for local council, but there are reasons much more compelling for participating, regardless of the outcome of the race.

Greens have often been criticised for taking votes away from the ALP, and it has not been unusual for some to suggest that Greens shouldn’t be standing if is going to jeopardise the chances of the ALP being elected. But if a party, whether it be the ALP or any other, is neglecting in Government or Opposition to make a stand on a particular issue, be it public education, uranium, refugees, forests, or industrial relations, it is essential that there is room for an alternative voice. We need politicians to stand up against the senseless and completely unsustainable practice of woodchipping native forests, and speak out for asylum seekers who have no choice but to leave their homelands because of persecution due to their political or religious beliefs. If it is a better world we all want, The Greens need to remain in Parliament and contesting elections for as long as issues like woodchipping and refugees and global warming and the plethora of other matters remain unresolved.

Politics and democracy in Australia ought not be restricted to what are traditionally regarded as the two major parties, acknowledging that one of those is a Coalition of two conservative parties. The two-party system is one that the two parties themselves are keen to perpetuate, and have done so with no small amount of success. But no-one is born to rule, nor does any party have the right to continue to dominate while there are policy areas that are being neglected, especially when the result is greater inequality or environmental degradation than already exists. If, however, either of the two parties cared to implement policies and take action to address those ongoing social and environmental problems and there was no longer any need for the alternative voices, then The Greens have done what we set out to achieve; it should not matter who does it, as long as it happens.

Both sides of politics (or is it simply “the other side”, with the ALP increasingly similar to the Coalition?) have accused The Greens of being goofy and populist. But you can’t have it both ways; if we’re goofy we can’t be populist, unless the wider population is goofy too, because being populist is changing policy to reflect the perceived opinions of the wider population. Yet at the same time we are apparently goofy because we have policies no-one agrees with. Greens develop policies in consultation with relevant experts in their field, and sometimes they will articulate details and actions that are not popular. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t espouse them. Compromise and pragmatism have their place, but there are times when it is important to hold onto the principle even though it seems unpopular. Holding out against an extremely flawed carbon emissions trading scheme was perceived by some to have been the wrong thing to do at the time, and is being held against us now during the current election campaign by both the ALP and the Coalition. But our position was supported then and has been since by those at the coalface of scientific and economic thinking on climate change.

Despite having a clear set of principles on which all its policies are based, The Greens receive an inordinate amount of criticism from the media and from the other political parties and, therefore, a broad sections of the community. Why? Most people would probably agree that it is important to care for people by making sure their basic needs are met, and to provide them with the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes about issues that affect their lives while they live safely and peacefully in a clean and healthy environment. Reflecting that, the four Green principles are social and economic justice, grassroots democracy, peace and nonviolence, and ecological sustainability, principles shared by Green parties around the world.

It seems obvious that the reason that The Greens are constantly misrepresented, derided and sidelined is directly related to greed, power and self-interest. Certain elements of big business recognise that The Greens are their main political obstacle when it comes to maximising profits regardless of the impacts on the Earth and its complex systems, so it is in their interests to make sure that The Greens remain on the periphery. One way of doing this is to own or influence the mainstream media and hope that the dialogue you construct around who is relevant in politics becomes the dialogue adopted by everyone.

Following the 2010 election, the ALP was willing to work with the independents and Greens to form a minority government that went some way to reflect the diversity of views that exist in the wider community. At last it seemed that there was movement away from the insistence that governing can only come out of one of two parties and instead, recognition that it could involve round-table discussion with a view to finding solutions in a consensus-based way. But its detractors did nothing but try to destroy this alliance from the moment it began, reinforcing the reality that it is the adversarial nature of current politics that is the one favoured by the Opposition and now again, it would seem, by the ALP.

We are all in this life together, and if we are genuinely concerned about getting the best outcomes for people and the environment we need to put egos aside, re-engage with politics and work together in a non-confrontational way to achieve those outcomes. In the words of Australian jazz musician Vince Jones – it’s the power of love, not the love of the power².