|
December 23, 2003
We have been considering whether the Third Way has any relevance for the Indigenous people in Australia. Noel Pearson, from Cape Yorke Partnerships argues that it does, especially in relation to social problems such as substance abuse.
Pearson is quite clear about the instruments of governance needed to achieve the goals indigenous people have set for themselves. He says:
"....indigenous people are beginning our long and arduous journey towards economic and social integration, and real self-determination, [and this] requires us to first take up the battle against the social, cultural and political power of addiction.....the disturbing central fact about many remote communities with pervasive substance abuse problems: the most important immediate struggle is not in the area of education about drugs, alcohol and petrol sniffing because education and rehabilitation cannot significantly reduce the already large groups of addicts....The immediate goal is to rebuild intolerance of abusive behaviour in indigenous communities to a level where functional and responsible people, not addicts and irresponsible people, set the tone of daily life."
What then is the Third Way?
In this recent article on the Third Way by David Hayward, the director of the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University, it is sugggested that the Third Way does not add up to a coherent philosophy. Rather, the principal characteristic of the Third Way is pragmatism, which is a willingness to use different methods of governance to achieve its aims. Drawing on the example of Tony Blair's New Labour Government in Britain Hayward says:
"All this suggests that the impression of Blair as a neo-liberal is wide of the mark. His is a moderate social democratic government - operating in post-neo-liberal times, to be sure, but with a core commitment to left-of-centre principles."
So what is Pearson's pragmatism? What is methods of governance is he willing to use to achieve his aims of economic and social integration, and real self-determination?
Pearson says:
"The immediate goal is to rebuild intolerance of abusive behaviour in indigenous communities to a level where functional and responsible people, not addicts and irresponsible people, set the tone of daily life. Polarisation and increased internal battles cannot be avoided.
This is at odds with the official rhetoric about reconciliation. Convention requires that people who are engaged in reconciliation work with indigenous people. Reconciliation is generally understood to be a matter of acknowledging wrongs, giving indigenous people rights and opportunities, and fighting attitudes and opinions in mainstream society that are detrimental to the advancement of indigenous people.
Immediate enforcement of social order is necessary to achieve the long-term goals of reconciliation and integration into the mainstream economy."
By integration Pearson means economic integration not cultural (ie., Pearson is anti-assimilatonist). He then says that:
"... economic integration will require increased geographic mobility for indigenous people. We want to give young indigenous people a chance to embark on orbits in the wider world, without relinquishing their ties to their homelands altogether. They can have the best of both worlds."
Economic integration, which in turn, requires social order:
"Social order in remote indigenous communities will be critically important for geographic mobility and economic integration. Children in remote communities need peace and a good start in life, otherwise they will not be able to make the transition to education and training in urban centres."
Social order does not require prohibition of grog. It requires the banning the private importation of grog and takeaways from the community taverns, so that sly grog can be identified and confiscated. Where there is policing of the alcohol management plans, the Queensland trials have led to social improvements that could be the beginnings of reducing indigenous disadvantage.
However the opposition to this pragmatic method of governance comes from within indigenous communities. Pearson says:
"...large groups of community members still wish to ease the restrictions in ways that will jeopardise the best progress that has been seen for decades. The driving force of this opinion is not a consideration for civil rights. It is addiction that is manifesting itself as a local political force. If you want to see addiction mobilised into social, cultural and political forces, try to tackle substance abuse in any of our communities."
The enabling state o this account is a state that finds practical methods and instruments for indigenous people to over the substance abuse, and associated behaviours and the addictions that go with this real problem.
|
