On National Democracy
by Jim Saleam
(Revised from a booklet published by Australian
National Action in 1990)
Australian Nationalists have published
'criticism' of the principle and the actual workings of the Australian State.
It is the principle of Nationalism to understand that the Programme of
Australian Nationalism cannot be actualised unless power is achieved to carry
our this programme. However, we must ask ourselves a question: what sort of
'State' shall succeed the present order? We have, hitherto, only stated
generalities of the vaguest or barely ideological sort; now we should be more
specific. People are asking the question of us.
Some people try to
argue that Nationalists seek to impose a dictatorship over the Australian
people. There have also been those calling themselves 'Nationalists' who have
said that a dictatorship is indeed their objective. It is one thing to require
political power to actualise Nationalist ideology; it is another to desire power
for an indefinable purpose, and power of an extreme overbearing variety
exercised by one or several 'leaders'.
So, what is the position? This
short pamphlet contends that Nationalists will in fact create a new political
order far more democratic than capitalist liberal democracy, our current
political system; yet, it shall witness a new nation of discipline, direction
and order. Can Authority and Popular Power be synthesised?
Nationalists say, unreservedly - yes!
I hope National Action will
encourage more discussion and debate about Nationalism by this publication.
There are many movements in our country today which are, in their own ways,
challenging Establishment ideology. Our task is to introduce the fermentation
element: a new and revolutionary political faith. The present
Constitutional-political-economic order is under real and increasing stress. Our
sharpened criticism and action will be decisive in focusing on the faults of
this old order and in drawing movements of popular democratic protest towards a
Section One: The C.E.D.A State
Form and Reality
It is the very first principle of our
understanding of the Australian State to differentiate form from
On the surface, at least, Australia is a 'democratic'
society where decisions of national and local importance are reached by elected
assemblies (parliaments or municipal councils) voting appropriately. All
citizens over the age of 18 years exercise the right to vote for candidates to
It is the case also that a number of political parties
exist, from the openly establishment parties (Liberals, Nationals, Labor,
Democrats) through to minor and 'protest' parties. In theory, "freedom of
speech" exists where any point of view may be espoused by any individual in a
fair and legal manner. Supposedly, a free and liberal media will report
accurately on all these parties and philosophies, allowing the people to make an
informed choice amongst them in an election or as a personal faith.
form of our State is "therefore" completely democratic. In theory, the
"policies" of the State, its "ideology", everything, can be changed "legally and
therefore - "democratically".
The reality is utterly different
from this mythology as drummed into our minds from birth to adulthood.
II The Ideology and Principles of the State
The Australian State, through its "representatives" (i.e. Governor General,
Prime Minister, Ministers, State-Premiers, leading politicians), expresses its
commitment to an ideology - liberal-democratic capitalism. The kernels of
this ideology can be defined as follows:
(i) The social order and
political needs of the People are set by economic factors.
"Consumption" provides social unity and represents the reason for "existence".
(iii) Nations are simply "aspects" of globalism, - irrelevancies.
(iv) Races are "irrelevant" to "consumption" on a global scale.
(v) Economic life is best organised as a corporate financial enterprise.
(vi) All men are essentially "the same" (equal?) : differences are only
economic in nature.
The Australian State can translate these ideological
concepts into principles of State policy.
Some "beyond dispute"
principles of the State would be:
(a) Loyalty to the United
States-directed alliance system. No serious challenge to our membership of ANZUS
(b) Australia's economic future lies within the Pacific Rim
(c) Australia is, progressively, to become Asianised in
(d) The present Parliamentary "Democracy" is sacrosanct.
These fundamental principles and policies are regarded as the
"base-myths" of the society. A serious challenge to them - a challenge in deeds
(i.e. not a challenge in words) - would be regarded as subversion, sabotage,
treason (the words of the Commonwealth Crimes Act), or an offence of
"incitement to racial hatred" etc.
In this "free" society it is
possible, therefore, to challenge anything and change anything other than
those things agreed to as fundamental articles of faith for the big
parties - and for those who pay them.
Nationalists reason that a serious
challenge to those "fundamentals" would, in the end, be answered with violence.
Consequently, pure democracy is a myth, a lie.
III The Big Business Power
In a society where
"consumption" is the highest principle, it is not difficult to see that the
possession of wealth confers a right on the holder of wealth to manage
the political process. The capitalist is not a man of the free enterprise type;
rather he is an organiser of wealth, a mobiliser of resources - a monopolist, in
Australia's major parties are machines for the "control" of the
political order; they require vast sums of money to operate. A clear
nexus exists between the organisations of finance and monopoly capitalism
and these parties. All the major political parties are creatures of this
system of organisation and manipulation. A vote for any of these machines
changes nothing fundamental in the workings of the State.
years ago, National Action managed to identify C.E.D.A., the Committee for
the Economic Development of Australia, as the personification of the system
The CEDA, an ostensible think-tank-run-advisory-body
to business and government, is in fact a central meeting place, a policy
making council for representatives of all major political parties. Its
membership comprises the directors and managers of nearly two hundred of
Australia's largest local monopolies and banks, and many representatives of the
multinationals and international banks. It is CEDA which has virtually "created"
the Australian State's drive to integrate Australia into the Pacific Rim
Economic Order. CEDA has literally written Australia's immigration
policy. It has directed the scrapping of Industrial protection, and has
formulated policies on matters such as Japanese investment and smashing the
trade unions. CEDA could be more correctly dubbed, given its extraordinary work,
the political party of Big Business, the "holding company" for all
the major parties, the State, in fact, if not in name.
power resides, not in Parliament, but in the agencies which control
Parliament. No matter how democratic the State says it is, the question for
Nationalists is: "Who pays the parliamentary parties?" It is the
Nationalist contention that the CEDA corporation and others pay for the facade
of democracy. It is also rather obvious that, in a society driven by commercial
values, "one man one vote" is a lie;. money has far more votes than persons.
Money has "contracts" with the government; it supplies campaign funds for
parties; money "promotes" leaders of the parties; it provides "advice" to
government and is considered in every decision. The entire system operates by
near-osmosis. What money "thinks", government carries out. The voter is
an actor in the drama and occasionally a factor, but seldom a prime-mover. He is
a passive unit within the regime. He rubber-stamps it all by voting for either
of the big machines of party politics in an election. The CEDA State knows it
well and governs along its merry way.
Section Two: Westminsterism: a Fraud of
Westminsterism is the "form" of
democracy which Australia inherited form British imperialism. There are many
people today who believe that Westminster Democracy is the highest expression of
democracy, even if manipulated and discoloured by the activities of a few
politicians. These conservatives postulate that Westminsterism derives from
Christianity. Supposedly Westminsterism is a perfect blend of Monarchy, Senate
and House of Representatives. Rubbish.
Westminsterism grew from the
English experience of Civil War. The system was designed to institutionalise
Constitutional-tension. This was "resolved" by creating two houses of parliament
both ruled over by a "limited" monarchy. Later, the system was modified to make
parliament itself the monarchy, albeit, "limited" by the person of the
monarch and tradition as represented by an "upper house". In the nineteenth
century, when the franchise was broadened to include most adult males, it was
held that freely choosing "representatives" in mass votes was the highest
principle of the democratic parliament. The system was passed on to Australia in
the 19th century.
Westminster parliaments encompass representatives
"chosen" from geographical units called "electorates". The electorate includes a
set number of voters on a set roll because of their place of residence. Such
representation is an abstraction; it "represents" numbers of people, not
the People itself. The parliamentary seat-holder is the creature of a party of
which only two are the chief actors in the parliamentary drama. He
chooses a "side" and speaks for it, and the people are expected (at least in the
House of Representatives) to take a "side" - supposedly, by this action,
allowing "stable government" to ensue. Yet the People are not represented
The fact is, geographical areas are represented, and the
two parties are represented. Workers, farmers, small-men, students, old people,
etc. are only "represented" insofar as one of the parliamentary parties feigns
to so represent them. And, as we have observed, the Westminster system of the
two parties must be based upon certain basic principles which cause it to
stay intact. Once this is acknowledged the system can be seen to have an
interest beyond the ranks of the People. But is the national interest
being served? - or the money interests of the few? And if we say - the
latter - does the system fairly represent the People? What truly
national interest could liars serve?
Westminsterism rewards those who
play its games. Parties vie for "office" on the basis of winning a 51% majority
of votes. Once in "office", the rewards are handed out. The party machines of
Westminsterism have the game suited to them. There is a Government and an
Opposition with the Speaker to run the game. Their game is played out in public
with the intention being to prove the system is democratic and not a
facade of democracy.
The ultimate yardstick is - Truth. In
Parliament "truth" is a football of the public party squabble, something lost
for the public in the war of words. An issue is distorted (intentionally?) from
the People's attention, falsified and tarnished by "debates". Is this like a
trial in an English-style judicial system - where it is admitted the aim
is "not to find the truth but weigh the evidence"? Where went the truth?
Lost in the evidence! (1) Parliament is like a court:
(Government = Prosecution) (Opposition = Defence) (Speaker = Judge) (Voters =
Jury), and its decisions, without truth, must be false. All is lost in
the game. Can it be said that Westminsterism is "good" for anybody - except
those who pay its bills?
The possession of a seat in a parliament does
not, for a Nationalist, imply the possession of any real power at all. Even the
possession of all the seats would not mean power unless once had dominance over
those who operate Parliament. And if one did acquire power would one still want
to operate the game?
Westminsterism encourages the growth of a permanent
class of politicians, not statesmen, not leaders of the Nation and people
(seldom do they emerge, though many are "created" by propaganda), but
career-servers, corrupt play actors. No wonder in Australia it is a Crimes
Act Crime to bring this system into "contempt"! Is it a lie to say that a
politician wants to "serve his masters" and "feed himself" at the public pig
trough? It is a sick game played out too often at the public expense.
Westminsterism is now to be challenged and criticised by many
Australians. Parliament no longer has the "moral" authority it once seemed to
exercise. All this is positive if we are to get rid of the fraud of democracy
and struggle for popular power.
Section Three: Democracy and authority: Background to National
Democracy: Redefining the Terms
It was the original
principle of liberal-democracy that "all men are equal", and this philosophical
idea was translated into "one man, one vote". Democracy was perceived as the
great equaliser, and its expression became a ballot-box majority - behind all
parliamentary assemblies. The two principles of Democracy and
Authority have existed uneasily within European societies since the
The old democratic theory proclaimed not only
equality, but that civil government was a sort of "contact" whereby the
"consent" of the majority was given for the institution of governments among men
This "consent" could be arbitrarily withdrawn if the social contract was broken.
This fine theory managed to disintegrate the community of Europe with its
abstract logic. (note 2) In truth, Nations have governments
based as much upon traditions and a certain idea of that nationality expressed
in cultural life, as they do upon the mere "contracting" of people for that
government. Let alone reaffirming that "contract" in "elections" every few
It is true in a narrow sense that there is a contract in
government. A state has as its duty the preservation of the Nationality, its
Culture, and to work for its general well-being. If this natural contract is
broken, it is the duty of the people to rebel and "abolish" that
government. But such a matter - as written in those words in the American
Constitution - has little to do with a State denying people "the pursuit of
happiness" - the fundamental liberal "idea" of human "wants'. The "denial of
happiness" is scant reason to overthrow a State.
institutions The process of electioneering has undermined the natural
institutions of society. Man does not live in his "party" in its "legislative
majority" in a parliament, neither is he made "happy" by regular elections.
Human society has its natural organic institutions, organisation of
labour, of family, of locality, of social purpose and
cultural expression. These institutions have usually been at war with
formal "democracy", and have become victims of class warfare [ It was a product
of the Age of Capitalism that the family would be assailed as out of date, that
Labour would be oppressed by the rich and agitated to revolution by the Left,
that culture and identity would be assailed by the Left as lies of the wealthy
and by the bourgeoisie as threats to free trade]. For Nationalists, true
democracy cannot even be said to exist if it is not exercised by the whole
Nation through its organic institutions.
Those institutions belie
formal "equality". Equality implies sameness and levelling. It often implies an
endless demand for rights without a recognition of
resposibilities. The natural institutions of society differentiate
between people in terms of occupation, interest and talent. There is nothing
truly anti-democratic or "authoritarian" in that, but there is most definitely a
respect for those values and structures which guarantee order and
direction in society.
The Nationalist State will come into being,
not amidst stability and good times, but amidst disorder and crisis. It will
find that the economic-social ravages of the free-enterprise liberal order will
have hacked into the Australian social structure to destroy family life, labour
structures and the traditional values of the Nation. We can see that already.
The liberal ideology has set the search for wealth on a new level: the
whole Nation is seen by liberals as simply an aspect of greater agencies of
economic growth. Anything "inconvenient" to the new order (be it labour
structures, traditional families, cultural pride) is to be mobilised against
and, if necessary, legislated against - and finally suppressed by violence or
threats of force. The perfect, free individual is to get rich in the new order
of Pacific capitalism.
The alternative Nationalist State will first be
a power, secondly the expression of the National Heritage and only
thirdly the means of constructing the organic institutions of the People. Why?
Because it will have power in its hands, because it will be power exercised for
the preservation of the National Idea, and because the natural order may
scarcely exist; and, where it does exist, it may be polluted by liberal ethics
and thinking. In Nationalist opinion, the State may have to create the climate
for the evolution of the social order, not in the sense of the failed social
engineering ideals of the old-liberalism or antiquated Marxism, but inasmuch as
only by the removal of old anti-national pressures may the State
experience the regrowth of natural (i.e. organic) structures.
Nationalist State therefore would not want to create the centralisation of all
power within itself (totalitarianism). Certainly that part of political power
relating to the national interest needs to be centralised in the State, but
power is not simply a commodity. The Nationalist State should therefore be
limited as to its power over the private world of the individual in his
day-to-day life and existence. Power should in these matters lie in the Family,
the Council, the factory Council, etc. Over-regulation - particularly in
Australia - would be, not an expression of strength, but of weakness.
For the Nationalist, the principles of Democracy and Authority need
to be redefined, then welded together in a National Democracy. We are going
to forge a State empowered with the Authority to direct and secure the Nation.
We desire a people which governs its own social life and which, through the
organic power structures, empowers and structures its State. There can be no
Democracy without the Nationalist State, and no Nationalist State without a
National Democratic order.
Section Four: the Revolutionary Party and the
There have certainly been many revolutions in
history, positive and negatives revolutions. But common to all is the twisted
relationship necessarily existent between the methods by which revolutionary
organisations defeat the old-state power and the goals which that party
supposedly promises: ideals for society and a better way of living for the
Consider Marxism: In theory at least, Marxism promises
the poorer classes of society wealth supposedly denied to them by the politics
of class exploitation. The struggle for the Marxist vision must necessarily be
waged by a party of the Leninist type. The mechanics of a Leninist party,
historically, have automatically led to ruthless dictatorship. The "workers and
peasants' government" rules against its "own" constituency. The barbarities of
Stalinist practice are well-known as the highest expression of Leninism. After
nearly a century of such Marxist revolutionary action, we are entitled to ask
the question: is the dictatorship in question related to the organisational
forms adopted by the party in its struggle for power? I would suggest the answer
is - yes. Insofar as the "vision" of Marxism is even worth considering as an
alternative to liberal democracy, the reality of Marxism contrasts sharply with
its promises. Somewhere the promises get lost.
Germany: The German National Socialists promised a folkish-state, a state of
the whole people, a people's community based upon "Germanic democracy". Very
early in the history of that movement, a leader-idea was grafted upon it.
Dictatorship replaced the idea of party comrades forging a classless Nation; the
party stagnated in government, becoming simply another agency of bureaucratic
control and a machine for personal advancement.
But our story is a
general one. Will our Australian upheaval be truly different? And I ask the
question regardless of the differences in time, place and ideology which
separate us from these examples.
In conditions of repression,
censorship, violence, negativity, cultural nihilism or social disorder, a
revolutionary organisation struggling for power necessarily needs internal
order, discipline, stability, ideological cohesiveness. It replicates the ethos
and agencies of the State. It may have its own internal police, its propaganda
organs, its courts of honour, its ruffians and its own methods of raising funds.
Each action or each department of the opposing state is faithfully reproduced.
And, once power is gained, the revolutionary party is faced with the task of
suppressing the ideology and organisations of the previous state. An
"Extraordinary Commission for the Suppression of Counter-revolution..." (Cheka)
in Russia was the forerunner to the NKVD/KGB: first it suppressed followers of
the Tsar; later it enslaved the Russian people in the Gulag-state.
Australia's "time of troubles" will, of course, be unique. The
conditions of the Nationalist Struggle will be likewise. But there is little
doubt in the mind of this writer that the increasingly totalitarian
anti-Australian methods of the liberal-capitalist state will call forth its
nemesis: a truly revolutionary-Nationalism, harsh, intolerant, desirous
of the energetic rescue of the Nation from its Pacific "destiny". The first
objective of the Nationalist party will be power, power to suppress the
ideology of liberal-capitalism and the organisations of the old-state.
However, there is a key point of Programme involved in the
Nationalist philosophy of the State which clearly limits the "aims" of the party
machine. The party does not aim to suppress the free expression of
interests within the Nation. It aims to play a role, indeed the key role, in the
creation of the new Constitution of the Australian National State. But it does
not aim to abrogate the very point of its existence: to place the
Australian Nation in control of the Australian State through the means of those
institutions and conventions established by the Australian Revolution.
Exaggerated authoritarianism is not part of the Australian character or cultural
It is the case also that state-worship is culturally
delimited by the fact that the "state" against which we are in revolt (endowed
as it is with its liberal-monarchist mythology) was and is the captive
master of the true Australian culture-Nation; the revolution against this
"State" is a liberating one. History has placed this revolution within its
context: its aim is to restore the potential of a developing Australian national
culture and ethos. It can hardly destroy the old-state only to fall in worship
of state power; the true Australian character is suspicious indeed of
It is this Australian spirit which will run
throughout Nationalist ranks in the struggle for political power. In power, the
Nationalist party must see to creation of the new institutions of the
state. Having defeated the old state-power, the party would be charged with
the creation of the new Nationalist order. As the combat party or struggle, the
party would transform itself into a vanguard of organisers for the new state
organs of administration and political education. That is its clear
constitutional role. How the party develops in power is irrelevant here; what
its future would be does not concern us. Our objective can only be the National
good as delineated in the Constitution of the National State and the growth of
the new institutions of popular-power. The new state will be the State of the
whole Nation; its interests necessarily overshadow the limited purposes of
any political party, including our own party machine.
Section Five: Popular Power: National
It is a general feeling in today's Australia
that people, the ordinary citizens, are powerless to change things which govern
their lives. Recently, this realisation has caused many people across the
country to propose Citizens-Initiated Referenda, a proposal whereby voters can
directly place measures before the whole people for a mass vote. National
Action, it should be noted, has had this sensible suggestion in its programme
since 1983. Such a campaign is a positive thing and would be an aspect of the
National Democracy which Nationalists desire for Australia. But it is not good
enough in itself; it is no panacea for social and political ills, either. The
protagonists of C.I.R. are often Westminsterites. Nationalists reason that the
unfortunate state of the Nation is related to its political forms. To see our
goal as "power" within a parliamentary system is to leave intact one of
the causes of the lack of national independence.
parliament is the legislative organ of the old-state and cannot be separated
from it. The National Revolution will shatter the old state in the process of
its actualisation; to re-establish the political forms of the old-state, albeit
with Nationalists "in charge", is to leave open the danger of a gradual
restoration of the conditions of the former system. It must be a cardinal
principle of Nationalism that it leave the forms of the old-state to the history
books, that it shatter the old-order to fragments.
But what can take its
When one grows up under a particular political system it can be
difficult indeed to formulate a real alternative to its "forms". But
Nationalists can visualise an alternative: the creation from the local level of
organs of popular authority and control, rising through a National Assembly and
organs of power which reflect the social and economic units of the Nation.
The Nationalist concept of society is often called the organic
idea. Nationalists cannot accept that a society is simply a collection of
sovereign individuals contracted together for the purposes of economic
production. It is this inorganic concept of society which lies at the basis of
both liberalism and its mirror "opposite", Marxism. For the Nationalist,
the Nation is an organic bonding of a people. Its "classes" are not economic
units alone (though there are such units with such purposes) but spiritual and
cultural "units" also. There are also units with no economic functions at all.
The Nationalist does not see society only as "workers", "farmers",
"small-businessmen" and white-collar/managerial officers; the Nationalist notes
the existence of soldiers, families, localities,
creative artists/authors, youth, the aged as other "units"
of the Nation - and there are much more such "units"!
In our analysis of
Westminsterism we noted the essential fraud of bourgeois liberal parliamentary
"representation". For Nationalists, the system of "representation" for the new
state has to be less of an abstraction and far wider in scope. It has to
encompass the whole Nation. Let us speculate on possibilities:
I. Local Power: the Popular Authority in Action
Nationalists envisage the ordinary citizen becoming directly responsible for
the maintenance of his local political-social environment and administration.
Municipal power should be the first unit in the edifice of the Nationalist
State. The local Council should not only exercise the "normal" powers of
municipal government but should also be an agency for the in the actual life of
the citizen. It could also be responsible for community policing, for the
registration of the opinions and demands of the ordinary citizen, a unit for the
improving of the quality of life of the Australian people.
"Representation" for such a council needs to arise from the lowest level
of social inter-action - from organised labour, farmers councils, youth
organisations, aged citizens' bodies, industrial- commercial bodies, etc. All
deputies to such a council should be responsible to those who choose them and to
a code of conduct; they should all hold revocable mandates.
notion of municipal government being elected for long, fixed terms is a
mechanism for ossification and corruption. A mayor may certainly be elected for
several years - but a Council?
From the units of popular power,
responsibility moves 'upward" towards state and national government.
II State Government: the Popular Aspect
Nationalists are of the view that the number of states should be
increased to favour national development and decentralisation of power and
population. The state governments will not be "sovereign" as per the inherited
colonial forms of the old "states" with their pretentious claims vis-ŕ-vis the
Federal Government. But they certainly will be units which express the
popular will, and the professional opinion, of their needs and potential.
Such state governments need the leadership of their executive organs
endorsed and regulated by the state assemblies. Those assemblies should be
larger than existing parliaments and based on families, unions, local council
representatives, specialised scientific-professional organisations, cultural
bodies, planning agencies. The assemblies could meet in commissions to settle
legislative proposals when the assembly meets and before it meets.
III National Government: the Popular Aspect
"National Assembly" would be a far larger unit than the current parliaments. Its
representational procedures would be similar to the state assemblies reflecting
both geographical occupational and other forms of representation - including
representatives of the state governments and local councils themselves.
The National Assembly would include soldiers, unions and workers,
farmers and rural organisations, municipal and state representatives, youth,
aged people's representatives professional representatives and particular
groups. The aim of such an assembly, "philosophically" speaking, would be to
preach the common unity over sectional interest. By bringing all sections
together to realise what can and should be done, the assembly of the Nation
would bind the Nation to a common programme of action; it would bring government
closer to the people. We are not utopians, nor do we have any
difficulties in such a system of representation in formulating legislation and
even avoiding some of the grossness of the old-state, but we are bound to work
towards a system of truly National Democracy. We cannot see, today how,
precisely, it will work; but we can see that popular representation is the
only alternative to a system which rests on its "democratic" credentials but
gives, as dictatorship of money over the people, a system of chosen politicians
and not representatives of the organic units of the Nation.
IV The Armed People
It is the liberal-state's dream to
disarm the whole Nation, leaving only its police and its army equipped with
fire-arms. Nationalists do not take this view. Nationalists believe the whole
military-age adult citizenry, by households, should be armed, not only as
a measure of defence (as in Switzerland) but as an expression of a fact. The
Nationalist State does not fear its citizens, and that power in the State in not
only an act of the executive government, but a function of the entire people.
The Armed Nation is the firmest guarantee that the State is not a mechanism of
some totalitarian clique of leaders; the Armed People ensures National
Originally in the racial history of the Indo-Europeans,
authority rested in military assemblies. In early England, for example, the Moot
was such an assembly. It was the mark of a free man to keep and bear arms and
his badge of admission to the assembly of his area. The citizen, trained
responsibly in civic duty, armed, was the rock of a society of the
European-type. It follows that such a people did not need special squads of
professional men to suppress certain criminals or localised enemies. The
authority of the local council was recognised.
Australia is a modern
late-20th century society; nevertheless, for Nationalists, the principle
remains. This does not mean that Nationalists seek to replace trained police and
soldiers with popular militia - on the contrary. However, authority exercised by
the state in its specialised areas is one thing; the right of a free people to
administer itself - another. For Nationalists, it will be age-old but
firm principles, codes of behaviour, which will replace the liberal state
with its arbitrariness and its bureaucracy.
The National Democratic
state must mould together Authority with Popular Power at every level.
Section Six: The Australian Constitution of the
The present Australian Constitution, an Act of the
British Parliament, is the paper document which sets out the working-rules of
the present State. Needless to say, this piece of paper means little in the
world of facts; the Constitution makes no mention of our national "obligations"
to ANZUS, the International Monetary Fund, various imperialism’s, etc. The
victory of the Nationalist political struggle necessarily will see the
abolition of the current constitutional order.
of the old-State cannot serve the Nationalist State. The 20th. century has been
a history of dependence for Australia; the 21st. century will be the
century of Australian independence. A new Constitution will be necessary.
National State, One and Indivisible
The Nationalists will
proclaim Australia a National State, one and indivisible. The former
hotch potch constitutional network of states, federal powers, conflicting
interests - all dependent on imperialism - should be forced into
history's dustbin. The Monarchy and the Constitution of 1901 could only be in
stark contrast to the intentions of the Nationalists. The National State is not
even a "choice" but a necessity which will be forced on the Nation by history.
Only a National State can complete the evolution of Australian nationhood. The
National State would be proclaimed a reality of law, history, tradition and
biology. The Nationalist State would be sovereign; its "states" would not
possess the sovereign power.
A New Tradition
State, by the Programme of National Action, would summon a [real] Constitutional
Convention to draft the new Constitution. This act would call to end the old
constitutional-legal conditions and reaffirm the Nation on the basis of its true
heritage, while initiating a new national tradition for Australia. The
Nationalist order would proceed on the basis that no Constitution is perfect,
nor permanent beyond the needs of Tradition, heritage and order. But it will
certainly have to regulate (i) the powers of the key institutions and structures
of the new state, (ii) the rights and duties of citizens, (iii) state the
principles upon which the new state will be based.
The Nationalist party
will have the moral right, born of its Revolution, to play a role in
constructing this new constitution.
For Nationalists, their struggle is
one of principles; their political victory would be a victory of those
principles over liberal ideology. If that liberal ideology had led the Nation
towards dissolution, Nationalists would have as their political objective the
higher security and interests of the Nation. Those principles of national life
are something without which, suggest Nationalists, the Nation cannot exist. Once
such principles are adopted by the whole Nation, the party interest of the
Nationalists assumes a second place.
Authority and Popular Power
The Constitution of the National State must express in law the relationship
between the executive power and popular initiative and control. In this case:
the relationship between the Presidential Government and the National Assembly,
the Governors of the States and the State Assemblies, the municipal executive
and popular councils, and the relationship of those tiers of government with
The Programme of National Action suggests that ministers in
a government need no longer sit in Parliament but should each be expert to their
task. This demolishes one of the talent-destroying "principles" of
Westminsterism, which forces members of cabinet to be self-serving parliamentary
cretins. The Programme implies that the presidential authority shall have its
rights vis-ŕ-vis the organs of popular power, just as those structures have
their function and rights which they can legally enforce. [The idea of a
President to Nationalists implies not only a ceremonial head of state but a
President with defined interventionist powers in the state: the right to conduct
government in his cabinet, to command the armed forces of the Nation, to veto
certain legislation, to propose legislation, to carry the right of presidential
pardon, to be the first diplomat of the Nation etc. The President's powers would
be those established by law; we do not consider dictatorial government wise nor
desirable for Australia]
It is not for us here to build a Utopia on
paper, but merely to illustrate the far-reaching scope of our constitutional
revolution; not only a revolution against archaic colonialist legalism, but of
the enshrinement of national sovereignty and the principles by which the
Australian People can live.
Section Seven: National Democracy in the Social
The Nationalist State would be the first
Australian State to be guided by a clear ideological impulse. Hitherto,
Australian statecraft has been guided by the expedients of the liberal
Establishment. The old-State has been anti-national, an enemy of national
development. The Nationalist State has, as one of its duties, the encouragement
and enactment of measures for the social improvement of the Nation. We have used
the old term from our past, "Social Republic", as our description of a Nation
of Social Justice. For Nationalists, the winning of national independence
and cultural freedom for Australia would be meaningless without a social
revolution. Our objective: the abolition of consumer ethos - a chief
contributing factor to the current national malaise. In our opinion, the
"alteration" of the social order is a guarantee against the return of liberal
ideology to the command of the State.
Liberal-democracy can only exist
in a particular environment. In a liberal-democracy the people must be reduced
to a collection of "individuals", competing in an economic market, to produce
and consume the most "products". Social order - indeed, the global political
order - must, according to the liberal democrats, reflect the economic
"realities". Nationalists, by working for an organic social order, would see
economics reduced in status, economic production subordinated to the Nation. The
Nation, as a welding of all classes, would therefore suppress the
capitalist-consumer "ideal". The Nation would be responsible, as a whole, for
production and consumption. The Social Republic would see all classes in
balance, not as "competitors" for resources, etc. by the normal rules of
capitalist economics, but rather as mutually co-operative agents in the raising
of production for development and consumption.
re-ordering of the social-economic structure would guarantee the Nation against
rule by its dregs - the capitalists. It is this small coterie of super-rich,
allied with international money, which we have denounced previously as being
those in command of the State. Such wealth could never again be permitted to
accumulate; their social principles would also need repudiation. The economy,
re-ordered - with its private sector, state sector, its co-operative sector
(municipal intervention) - would be an economy out of the control of the
mega-rich through their monopolies and banks. It is clear that the Social
Republic would be one of genuine "development", far removed from the parasitic
structure which today destroys the wealth of the Nation - for "trade'.
The National State would therefore be based upon the productive classes
of the Nation. Such classes are part of an organic social order.
National Democracy, by establishing new organs of political
representation, would ensure the control of economics by politics. The councils
of farmers, workers, small businessmen, etc., in conjunction with their unions
or associations, would be primary organs for the planning and control of
economic life by the Nation.
The New Australia will have little time for
the antics of those who perceive the national wealth as a domain for rape and
This voluntary upsurge by the whole Nation to assert
itself over the few who own the State, would be one of the grandest periods of
the coming Australian Revolution.
Political Debate in Australia has
been limited by its enforced confinement to discussion of variants of
liberalism. Only two other forces - conservatism and Marxism - have existed at
any time outside of the Establishment consensus, and often their doctrines have
seen movements constituted on their principles, yet co-opted by the State. New
Guardism (conservatism) in the 1930s and Marxists in the 1990s are two examples
of Establishment usage of other ideological formations for particular ends. The
New Guard assailed Lang's radical Nationalism; radical Marxists today make the
best "anti-racists". Liberalism remains the dominant doctrine.
are seeing an embryonic Nationalist movement raising a challenge to
Establishment liberalism. A new aspect of political debate has raised its voice,
much to the chagrin of the Establishment.
Our doctrine is like no other.
It calls for the return of the Nation to the principles which first gave
Australia her statement of Nationhood and a national struggle towards
Independence and Social Justice.
That Nationalism is the only
revolutionary doctrine in Australia today is obvious, but Nationalism is not a
utopian creed. It promises no dreamland, no utopia. However, it promises a
Nation, independent and free, a state of the whole Nation, a state of direction
and leadership, one of justice and popular power. If the Australian Revolution
can deliver these promises it will have been worth the sacrifices it called for.
Notes to the pamphlet.
1. It is a legal textbook truth that
trials under British "Justice" are exercises in proving or disproving whether
the prosecution has a "case". Judges and prominent commentators recognise that
the truth may never be found. This "CANT" which lies at the basis of British
Justice is ridiculed in Europe.
2. By this is meant the excesses of the
French Revolution and the collapse of the traditional foci of popular loyalty
and authority. The search for "freedom" was a result of this period; it is
debatable whether freedom resulted or tyrannies emerged.