72 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
ISSN: 1837-5391; http://utsescholarship.lib.uts.edu.au/epress/journals/index.php/mcs
CCS Journal is published under the auspices of UTSePress, Sydney, Australia
Redefining the political moment:
Or the way Politics hollows out politics and how we should
respond
James Arvanitakis
University of Western Sydney
Abstract
On 16 February 2003, more than half a million people gathered in Sydney, Australia, as part of a global anti-war
protest aimed at stopping the impending invasion of Iraq by the then US Administration. It is difficult to
estimate how many millions marched on the coordinated protest, but it was by far the largest mobilization of a
generation. Walking and chanting on the streets of Sydney that day, it seemed that a political moment was upon
us. In a culture that rarely embraces large scale activism, millions around Australian demanded to be heard. The
message was clear: if you do not hear us, we would be willing to bring down a government. The invasion went
ahead, however, with the then Australian government, under the leadership of John Howard, being one of the
loudest and staunchest supporters of the Bush Administrations drive to war. Within 18 months, anti-war
activists struggled to have a few hundred participants take part in anti-Iraq war rallies, and the Howard
Government was comfortably re-elected for another term. The political moment had come and gone, with both
social commentators and many members of the public looking for a reason. While the conservative media was
often the focus of analysis, this paper argues that in a time of late capitalism, the political moment is hollowed
out by ‘Politics’ itself. That is to say, that formal political processes (or ‘Politics’) undermine the political
practices that people participate in everyday (or ‘politics’). Drawing on an ongoing research project focusing on
democracy and young people, I discuss how the concept of ‘politics’ has been destabilised and subsequently, the
political moment has been displaced. This displacement has led to a re-definition of ‘political action’ and, I
argue, the emergence of a different type of everyday politics.
Introduction
In Samuel Becket’s renowned play, Waiting for Godot, two characters, Vladimir and
Estragon, wait around for someone named Godot to arrive. The play follows the lives of the
pair over two days as they attempt to divert themselves while waiting expectantly, and as it
turns out unsuccessfully, for Godot. They claim he is an acquaintance, but it seems that they
hardly know him, admitting that they would fail to recognise him if he were to arrive. They
occupy their time eating, sleeping, debating, arguing, playing games, swapping hats, and
contemplating suicide. They will do anything “to hold the terrible silence at bay” in their wait
for Godot (Becket quoted in Knowlson 1996, p. 57).
For many interested in political change, waiting for the political moment is similar to waiting
for the arrival of Godot: we believe that it will eventually come, but not sure either when this
will happen or that we will even recognise it. We are not even sure what will trigger the
arrival of the moment.
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 73
Throughout contemporary history, many authors including Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci and
Antonio Negri direct us to that moment: likely to be brought on by the crisis and inherent
contradictions of capitalism (Negri 1991). The ecological threats that emerge through the
ever-expanding essence of capitalism are also seen to trigger a crisis that will lead to the
moment for change (Burkett 1999). When it does arrive, we believe that a post-capitalist,
ecologically sustainable and socially just society will emerge.
At two separate points during the play, Pozzo and his heavily laden slave Lucky, interrupt
Vladimir and Estragon. The entrance of the two is quite dramatic including an appalling cry
from the edge of the stage as Lucky enters with a rope around his neck. Lucky staggers half
way across the stage before we see his master holding the other end of the rope. Pozzo yells
rudely at the slave, calling him ‘a pig’ while being friendly to the other two, who initially
mistake him for Godot.
This type of ‘false arrival’ is something that has come to dominate the political moment.
There have been many instances across the world when we have believed that the political
moment has arrived. In 1999 during the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations in
Seattle, for example, a new global justice movement emerged that insisted the demands of
trans-national corporations be secondary to social and environmental concerns. The protesters
claimed solidarity with third world movements such as the Zapatistas in Mexico, and
established a ‘people’s blockade’ which ‘shut down’ the WTO ministerial (Barlow and
Clarke 2001). Such blockades were mirrored all over the world: from Melbourne, Australia,
which attempted to stop the meeting of the World Economic Forum in 2000, to countless
protests against the ‘purveyors’ of ‘development’ throughout the world that have been at the
source of an economic model that has failed the majority of the world’s population including
the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.
Each one of these blockades was aimed at symbols of globalised capitalism, and represented
an alternative vision of globalisation. Along with the annual World Social Forum meetings
held in Porta Alegre in Brazil, it was argued that this movement had seized a political
moment to bring global capital to account for its excesses (Kingsnorth 2003). Elsewhere, I
have described this movement as ‘counter globalisation’ rather than the popular ‘anti-
globalisation’ title it was given as it presented us with a different vision of globalisation (see
74 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
Arvanitakis 2007). Though the movement remains active and continues to challenge the
excesses of capital, it is difficult to argue that it has not lost momentum, not least because of
the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington that put such activity under severe
scrutiny (Fernandez 2009). The moment had come and gone, and little had changed.
Likewise, on 16 February 2003, more than half a million people gathered in Sydney,
Australia, as part of a global anti-war protest aimed at stopping the impending invasion of
Iraq by the then US Administration. It is difficult to estimate how many millions marched on
the coordinated protest, but it was by far the largest mobilisation of a generation – with new
technologies allowing a coordinated approach by the anti-war movement that was not
possible during the mass protests against the Vietnam War.1
Walking and chanting on the streets of Sydney that day, it seemed that a political moment
was again upon us – the multitude of protesters had re-emerged, taking a different form and
expanding to include many who had never previously taken to the streets. In a culture that
rarely embraces large-scale activism, millions around Australian demanded to be heard. The
message was clear: if you do not hear us, we would be willing to bring down a government.
The invasion went ahead, however, with the then Australian government, under the
leadership of John Howard, being one of the loudest and staunchest supporters of the Bush
Administration’s drive to war.
Within 18 months, anti-war activists struggled to have a few hundred participants take part in
anti-Iraq war rallies, and the Howard Government was comfortably re-elected for another
term in 2004.2
Again, a new people’s ‘super power’ emerged, and again it dwindled, leaving
many wondering what happened to ‘the moment’ (Moore 2003).
This paper has two broad aims. To begin with, I discuss the absence of a specific political
moment – particularly following the economic and environmental crises that currently
1 One estimate has placed the figure at 36 million people participating in over 3,000 protests in the three-month
period between January-March 2003. See http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=6067 –
accessed May 2010.
2 Though a detailed analysis of the re-election of the Howard Government is beyond the scope of this paper, it is
important to note that John Howard was able to sideline and dismiss criticisms about the war during his
campaign by appealing to Australians to ‘support the troops’. This allowed him to concentrate on then
opposition leader, Mark Latham’s, many weaknesses as well as focussing on silencing many individuals and
organisations critical of his government. See Hamilton and Maddison (2007) for more details.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=6067�
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 75
confront us. I argue that in a time of late capitalism, the political moment is hollowed out by
‘Politics’ itself. That is, the processes of contemporary capitalist political cycles undermine
and erode moments of political action by citizens, be they large or small. Consequently,
formal political processes (or ‘Politics’) undermine the practices of the citizenship, forcing
them to increasingly focus their engagement towards informal or everyday small ‘p’ politics.
The second aim of the paper, then, is to consider the transformation in the character of the
relations between citizens and civic institutions that follow this – a relationship that has
become increasingly complex due to many factors, including globalisation and the rise of
neoliberalism. What follows is that the concept of ‘politics’ has been destabilised and
subsequently, the political moment has been displaced. This displacement has led to a re-
definition of ‘political action’ and, I argue, the emergence of a different type of everyday
politics by citizens that we find difficult to understand and measure.
The political moment
It does not take a ‘Marxist’ to appreciate the crises and contradictions that are intrinsic to
capitalism. Central here is a system – economic, political and social – that relies on ongoing
and continuous expansion. To achieve this, capitalist production must find new ways to grow:
be it through new forms of domestic exploitation or imperialist expansion. Inherent in this is
that our society takes on a capitalist subjectivity (Hardt and Negri 2000). From our politicians
and union leaders, to our own personal position, we are constantly looking for new
opportunities of growth, wealth, accumulation and affluence.
Within this ongoing need for expansion, we see the emergence of crises. Antonio Negri’s
(1991) reading of the Grundrisse, for example, outlines how the exploitative demands of
capitalism lead to antagonistic relationships between classes creating the constant potential
for crisis. Negri argues that the historical development of capitalist society involves the
development of both the working and capitalist classes as separate and antagonistic subjects.
For its own survival, capitalism must ensure the relationship expands both horizontally
(through increasing levels of surplus labour) or vertically (by expanding a capitalist
accumulation subjectivity). Negri sees this working class subjectivity constantly being
manipulated and controlled by various means, as the working class has the potential to throw
the system into crisis and tear it down. Here, capital cannot appropriately control the working
class and the potential for a revolutionary (political) moment remains constant.
76 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
In contrast to traditional approaches to Marxism, Negri (1991) argues that class struggle is
not limited to the economic sphere, but exists everywhere. In this way, political relationships
are ubiquitous. Consequently, the political moment can materialise in any sphere.
Additionally, the shape of this political moment is also undefined by Negri. For clues here,
we can turn to Negri’s later projects with Michael Hardt (2000; 2004; 2009) where they
discuss the emergence of the ‘multitude’. Hardt and Negri present the multitude in expansive
terms, describing it as “a broad category that includes all those whose labour is directly or
indirectly exploited by and subjected to capitalist norms of production and reproduction”
(2000, p. 52). Later, Hardt and Negri (2004) attempt to solidify the multitude and qualify it in
terms of today’s progressive activist movements.
While this attempt to better explain their political subject has many critics (see Brennan
(2002) and Callinicos (2002) for example), Hardt and Negri (2004) seem to purposefully be
avoiding an ultimate definition. As such, they present the concept of the multitude and its
emergence as being “internally different, multiple social subjects whose constitution and
action is based not on identity or unity… but on what it has in common” (ibid. p.100). The
group of social actors, then, defines this common. Defined in a more pragmatic way, this can
be thought of citizens cooperatively taking control of challenges that confront them (Hay
2009).
As highlighted above, we do not have to look far to identify crises in capitalism – though the
political moment remains elusive. Most recently, this occurred during the Global Financial
Crisis (GFC) when the exploitative and casino nature of neoliberal capitalism emerged.
Related here, is simultaneous unmasking of the state apparatus that supports and underpins
the system that gave rise to the GFC.
A detailed explanation of the financial crisis is beyond the scope of this paper but just how
embedded it has become in our contemporary world is best understood by the fact that it has
its own acronym: GFC. Like LOL (or laugh out loud for the uninitiated), the GFC remains
very today: not only used as an acronym when writing, but actually used when speaking as
well. I am not making light of the crisis that refuses to go away despite promises that all is
well. Rather, the fact that such an acronym is used confirms it is part of our daily experience.
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 77
This is not a stand-alone crisis, however, and is accompanied by the global food crisis (or the
‘other GFC’). Though it no longer makes the front page of our newspapers, it has not gone
away. The ‘other GFC’ saw the standard of living of over half of the world population fall
dramatically following a surge in food prices in 2007-08 (World Bank 2010; Lorimer 2008).
While many of us may have noticed a jump on our grocery bill of a few dollars, the world’s
more vulnerable populations felt the effects immediately, with tens of millions of people
more than before faced hunger and hundreds of millions having to reduce their food
consumption. The World Bank (2010) estimated that the result of the surge in food prices
increased the number of undernourished people in the world to a staggering 923 million.
Then of course there is the most challenging of all crises: climate change. With only a
handful of political dinosaurs now believing that this is actually not a problem to be
confronted, the issue of global warming is interlinked with both the GFC and the food crisis
in a number of ways – not least the need for capital to expand despite the consequences.
As the global economy stood on the brink of collapse, the combined and complementary
struggles of the world's working classes operating simultaneously could have given rise to
radical socio-political transformation. Despite the mass demonstrations (which are continuing
in Greece and Spain at the time of writing), no such political moment emerged and the
general feeling is the worst is over – a point recently encouraged by the International
Monetary Fund in their 2010 Economic Outlook3
.
The crises I have described above, then, have not led to a political moment but a withdrawal
from formal political processes (Li and Marsh 2008). To understand why this is the case, I
believe we need to turn to a study of citizenship and how its changing nature has hollowed
out the political. Despite flashes of resistance and protest, recent research in Australia finds
that people feel increasingly alienated, excluded and disempowered from formal politics
(Arvanitakis and Marren 2009). I argue below that this is because the formal Political sphere
constructs and thrives on such feelings of disconnection.
Before proceeding, it is important to note I am discussing the emergence of both the citizen
and the ‘political moment’ within a national context rather than expanding this examination
3 See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/index.htm - accessed May 2010.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/index.htm�
78 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
to include concepts such as the ‘global citizen’ (Davies 2006). While this may diverge from
the thrust of Hardt and Negri’s (2004; 2009) broader intent, it is important to note that I am
engaging an approach that connects theory with observed reality. My work here is based on
what Nicolescu (2006) describes as ‘phenomenological transdisciplinarity’. By drawing on
this approach, I am attempting to integrate a “non-dogmatic treatment of the transdisciplinary
theory and practice” within a plurality lived experiences (ibid. p.3).
The complex relations of citizenship
In its most basic definition, we can think of citizenship as a set of social practices (Turner
1993, p.4) that bind us to a nation (Mueller 2002). From this flows a concept that citizenship
is linear: a direct relationship between civic institutions and the citizen. The quality of this
relationship is measured by voter attitudes and participation (Kymlicka and Norman 1994).
In this way, the concept of citizenship has been proposed as a way of describing what people
are excluded from, and what they could be included in. This envisages a form of belonging
entailing both rights and responsibilities, and constructs a unifying sense of the civis to which
they may belong.
In the contemporary world, however, there is a need to understand citizenship as a more
complex phenomenon. That is, it should not be seen as a simple one-to-one linear
relationship between an individual and a civic body, but it is also a function of the
relationships with those around it. This is a relational approach to citizenship, where my bond
with civic institutions is complicated by the connection I have with those around me (both
near and far), as well as their relationship with the same civic institutions.
In addition, we have the rise of duel citizenship and increasing migration levels. In Australia,
for example, the percentage of people born outside the country has increased dramatically
over the last 30 years and now represents 25 percent of the population. In addition, it is
estimated that 45 percent of Australians were either born overseas or have at least one parent
who is a migrant.4
4 See Department of Immigration and Citizenship Fact Sheets available at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-
sheets/04fifty.htm – accessed April 2010.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm�
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm�
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 79
There is also the ‘non-citizen citizen’. That is, the displaced person or temporary migrant
who lives within a country’s borders. In an increasingly globalised world, we must
acknowledge this section of the population and the influence they have even though they are
not ‘citizens’ in the traditional sense of the word. For example, in 2007 Australia had over 7
million temporary migrants (who were working, studying or visiting).5
In a population of just
over 22 million, this is a significant proportion and one that is also important in influencing
the relational nature of citizenship. This became evident in the emerging tensions caused
between Australia and India when a number of Indian students where the victim of violent
attacks. Such attacks created a number of strains, both locally and internationally, as
Australians reflected on a history of underlying racist exclusion and tensions (Haigh 2010).
Such a position on citizenship means that we cannot understand the relationship between the
individual and the state in a straightforward equation. Rather, it is complex and constantly re-
negotiated. It also means that we should resist the concept of citizenship as stable or its
meaning universal. Consequently, we need to see the relationship between the state and
citizens as constantly in flux with different groups and individuals having significantly
different relationships (see Figure 1).
A key problem is, however, that the most common way of seeing ‘citizenship’ is in rigid,
restrictive terms, privileging a limited range of values and identities. In Australia, we have
found that this is basically a conservative, mono-cultural, Anglo-Australian, and it is being
imposed on those who do not fit: from the young person to immigrant populations
(Arvanitakis and Marren 2009). In this way, it reinforces a sense of exclusion that is
aggravated because citizenship is seen as something that you must ‘fit into’ (Collin 2008).
We can think of this as a type of blunt instrument forcing all citizens, including their values
and aspirations, into a pre-determined shape (Aly 2010). This idea of citizenship,
paradoxically, has led to sense of alienation rather than addressing it.
5 See Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade information sheets available at
http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/tourism_students.html - accessed April 2010.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/tourism_students.html�
80 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
This process of exclusion was dramatically illustrated during a media debate in 2007 about
the Citizenship Test that controversially asked a question about Australia’s most famous
cricketer, the late Don Bradman, who would be unknown to anyone outside a handful of
countries. In fact, Bradman’s career peaked during the 1930s and ‘40s, and though a
‘cricketing legend’, is from an era that even the majority of Australia’s cricketing supporters
can barely relate to. This failed to recognise the dynamic reality of today’s multicultural
population. This Anglo-centric, parochial definition disconnects them (and Australia itself)
from the dynamic, changing global context that frames all social action today (Hodge and
O’Carroll 2006). From Australia’s point of view, it achieves a ‘fantasy of unity’ at the price
of excluding the various talents and energies that could make a difference. For those
excluded, it reinforces a sense of not being valued or supported, for themselves and for their
role in the civis.
At the same time, even those who take part in the ‘fantasy of unity’ are feeling alienated,
marginalised and neglected, and often believe they are remote from the workings of civic
institutions (Poynting 2006). This is because the image is hollow and is simply not
representative. Rather than acting as a way to unite, the image highlights just how far
removed we are from the civic institutions that are meant to represent us.
Figure 1: Citizenship Typology
Disempowered
Marginalisation and
citizenship deficit
Citizenship surplus
Privatisation and
citizenship deficits
Insurgent citizenship
Empowered
EngagedDisengaged
A
B
D
C
Zone of frustration
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 81
This disconnection is aggravated when attempts by the broader population to become
engaged are dismissed or ignored. There are many examples to draw on, including the
dismissal of the then Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, of anti-war protesters as nothing
but ‘a mob’ (cited in Marr 2007), or when the then NSW Premier, Bob Carr, described the
demonstrators as “street fighting fascists” (ibid.). More recently, civil mobilisations and the
emergence of a grassroots movement to demand action on climate change that directly
assisted the election of Kevin Rudd as Australian Prime Minister in 2007 – a commitment
that the Rudd Government walked away from (see Arvanitakis 2010 for a detailed
discussion).
The result is increasing disinterest and distrust in formal political processes, as well as, public
representatives (Collin 2008) and falling membership in formal political parties (Jaensch et
al. 2004). This can be highlighted by returning to the example of former Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd’s failure to act on climate change despite describing it as one of the greatest
“moral challenges of our time” (Wright 2010). Surveys and opinion polls following this
decision led to a collapse in both Rudd’s ‘reliability’ and ‘trust’ rating (Colgan 2010). This
type of disengagement and distrust of formal Politics and lack of access to democratic
processes is often described as a ‘democratic deficit’ (Della Porta 2005, p. 669).
Della Porta (2005) argues that this democratic deficit is caused by a combination of losing
any sense of control as well as marginalisation. Recognising this deficit, many studies have
investigated attempts to re-engage citizens through mechanisms to promote citizenship
education and a more active citizenship (Portney and O’Leary 2007). This has led to a great
deal of work to encourage ‘active citizenship’, which focuses on the twin nature of
citizenship as including rights and responsibilities: that is, we have to know our rights but
also acknowledge our responsibilities to those around us. In reviewing the work put forward
here, I believe that they maintain both a ‘one size fits all’ and ‘top-down’ approach to
citizenship. The result is that the impacts of such programs may actually be negative as they
neglect the diversity of contemporary citizenship and are often rejected by those targeted
(ibid.)
A better approach is to acknowledge the relationship between civic institutions and citizens,
as well as the relationships between different groups. Further, we need to understand
citizenship as in flux rather than as a stable category. A better way to understand this
82 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
complex relationship is by understanding citizenship as being in surplus and deficit. This
acknowledges the relational and complex nature of citizenship in the contemporary world.
Citizenship deficits and surpluses
In the sections above, I have outlined the need for a complex understanding of citizenship. To
overcome this, I have previously presented a typology to reflect the different experiences of
citizenship (see Figure 1). The aim of this typology is to show how a population’s
relationship with civic institutions cannot be taken for granted and must be acknowledged as
variable. Once people interact with civic organisations, their experiences will reflexively
influence future interactions. In this way, a negative experience either directly or by someone
within a social network creates a relationship that further alienates a citizen. In this section, I
outline the four key citizen types I have identified and implications for the political moment.
Referring to Figure 1, section A portrays ‘marginalisation and citizenship deficits’. This is
driven by a belief that interaction with civic institutions is pointless as opinions or demands
will be ignored, disconnecting people from the civic institutions surrounding them. There is a
feeling that any effort to be involved will have no results: hence, a sense of disengagement
and disempowerment prevails. While not always the case, research shows that many young
people fit into this group, as well as people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and
newly arrived migrants (see Arvanitakis and Marren (2009) for details).
It is important to note that this attitude of disconnection arises from either personal
experience or the encounters family or friends may have had with civic institutions. This
highlights the need to understand citizenship in relational and complex terms: it is not just the
relationship between the individual and the state and its institutions that is important, but also
the experiences of those around us.
Section A also sees ‘privatisation and citizenship deficits’ apply to wealthy populations. This
results from a lack of access to civic institutions because of privatisation and neglect by
government, leading to the privatisation of decision-making and withdrawal from the public
arena and democratic processes (Stoker 2006). Such citizens find their relationships with
civic institutions more like that of consumers. As such, the relationship is merely a
commercial rather than a civic one: the citizen simply sees the state as akin to any other
service provider and in competition with the private sector. Consequently, there are no social
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 83
practices of citizenship as described by Turner (1993) but a mercantile relation. Such a
population may feel empowered during times of economic boom but during times of financial
hardships such empowerment may quickly dissipate.
Section C, ‘citizenship surplus empowered not engaged’ represents citizens in surplus though
with limited or no political engagement. This group appears to have much in common with
the privatised citizen above, but may come from areas that are highly serviced by civic
institutions. The choice not to engage is therefore voluntary. There is a strong push for self-
sufficiency – a belief that their social capital and connections, wealth and status mean that
they do not require the services of civic institutions (including government bodies). While not
antagonistic towards such institutions, they believe that many services provided by the
private sector are superior to public ones.
Section D is the ‘insurgent citizen’ (see Holston 2007), who is both engaged and empowered.
This group may not have access to many financial resources, but have high social capital and
a willingness and ability to make time to be engaged in the political process. They feel
empowered through their social background and engage with civic institutions and political
processes. This group can have either progressive or conservative agendas: some promoting
social justice issues (including students, academics, unionists and so on), while others may
have a reactionary ideology (such as ‘anti-immigration’ groups).
This group further demonstrates the complex and relational nature of citizenship. Such active
citizenship draws heavily on civil society connections and interactions (Isen and Nielson
2008). In this situation, while such individuals may at times experience alienation from
formal Political mechanisms, links to civil society networks are maintained and active
citizenship promoted regardless.
Importantly, such ‘citizenship surplus’ is increasingly documented in theoretical literature
through different descriptions. Henrik Bang (2005; 2009) draws on the work of Marsh,
O’Toole and Jones (2007) to discuss ‘Everyday Makers and Expert Citizens’ who, he argues,
represent the emergence of a politics of lived experience. Bang sees these as evidence of
resistance identities that emerge in industrialist society that aim for politically transformation.
For Bang, this is a group that is driven by a ‘project’: that is, a specific political outcome
rather than ongoing solidarity. Such citizens are acting on and working with others to
84 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
confront issues of mutual concern rather than being part of a broader ‘values-based’
movement. For Li and Marsh (2008), such changes require a broader understanding of the
way citizens now undertake the political.
Section B is the ‘zone of frustration’. This area represents the group of people who are
engaged in political processes but for various reasons (including institutional racism)
experience feelings of disempowerment. Such disempowerment means that frustrations
towards democratic institutions may develop. Furthermore, this zone could expand as people
have negative experiences in dealing with civic institutions.
While Section D is the zone that a healthy democracy operates in, I would argue that the
hollowing out of Politics means that this zone is itself being ‘emptied out’. We can turn to the
issue of climate change to highlight the ongoing disconnection between the daily experiences
and practices of citizens (or ‘politics’) with the practices of formal politics (or Politics) as an
example of this. This can be seen in the continued subsidisation of the coal industry, despite
the rising evidence of detrimental health and environmental effects – both local and global –
that has left many Australians exasperated.6 Despite the engagement in Politics to alter this
process, the latest federal position is one that continues to underwrite the industry. In fact,
just how far the citizenship has become removed from Politics was highlighted by a proposed
tax on mining ‘super profits’ which actually led to the downfall of Kevin Rudd as prime
minister, who was replaced by Julia Gillard offering a version of the tax that was more
acceptable to the mining industry.7
This sees a split between formal Politics and the informal, everyday politics. That is, the
formal political realm of political parties and formalised consultation processes are seen
increasingly distant from daily experiences and consequently, there is little incentive to
participate. Consequently, we are not seeing a collapse of support for democracies (Norris
2011), but a general disintegration in the participation of political processes to the point that,
according to Colin Hay (2007), we come to ‘hate’ politics. In many ways then, the political
processes we are offered are often seen as nothing more than a method of placating public
concern rather than being a real part of decision-making processes (Hay 2007; Collin 2008).
6 See for example http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/hunter-cancer-cluster-fear-prompts-
health-reviews/1800850.aspx - accessed May 2010.
7 See McKnight 2010 for a detailed discussion on the role of the mining industry in the political collapse Kevin
Rudd.
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/hunter-cancer-cluster-fear-prompts-health-reviews/1800850.aspx�
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/hunter-cancer-cluster-fear-prompts-health-reviews/1800850.aspx�
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 85
This phenomenon was also evident in the United States with the election of President Barack
Obama. While an in-depth analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note
how the election of President Obama was at the beginning of the GFC and presents us with
an interesting example of blurring the line between the activist moment and the Political. This
was the election of the first African-American president and he managed to utilise many
former anti-war, union, student leaders throughout the course of his two-year campaign
(Bang 2009). Also, as the election occurred during the start of the GFC, many of these people
have since been tied up in the ‘let him do his job’ mantra (Dreier 2008) rather than critiquing
his failure to deliver on some of his key campaign promises including action on climate
change (Hillygus and Henderson 2010).
Is it possible to see how President Obama managed to inspire people to feel both empowered
and engaged? This has not lasted as we have seen a collapse of his popularity midway
through his first term.8 Though the reasons for a collapse of his support are many, but it has
been increasingly obvious that the President has not been able to ride the wave of support he
created in his drive to be elected.9
Once again, the formal sphere of Politics has led to
disappointment.
Redefining political moments: a conclusion of sorts
With such experiences, it is not difficult to understand how politics is hollowed out and how
the political moment fails to materialise. In place then, what has emerged? Rather than
looking for ‘the political moment’, we need to recognise that political moments are occurring
consistently around us. That is, a politics is emerging that is outside formal political
processes.
What does this look like? In many ways, it is difficult to identify as it materialises in ways
that are non-traditional and have been dismissed as pointless. For example, in Sydney we
have seen the emergence of bike cooperatives. Within these organisations we see an open
8 See analysis of opinion polls as follows: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/12/2010-04-
12_president_obamas_approval_rating_hits_an_alltime_low_polling_data_suggests.html
9 Another phenomenon that followed the GFC has been the emergence of the TEA Party (an acronym for
‘Taxed Enough Already). While it is difficult to discuss this recent phenomenon, its emergence is one that
complicates matters for a number of reasons. Firstly, despite claims that it is a grassroots movement, it is
strongly supported by established interests (Hamsher 2009; Frank 2010). Furthermore, rather than calling for a
radical re-think of the political, it has emerged as a force to support the system that created the crisis, calling for
an increase in capitalist relations, no less.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/12/2010-04-12_president_obamas_approval_rating_hits_an_alltime_low_polling_data_suggests.html�
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/12/2010-04-12_president_obamas_approval_rating_hits_an_alltime_low_polling_data_suggests.html�
86 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
space where the abovementioned capitalist labour relations break down in an open and free
exchange of labour. Such moments constantly emerge in ways that challenge the very logic
of capitalism – from the open sharing of intellectual labour to the emergence of a free
university movement. It is here that we see glimpses of Hardt and Negri’s (2004) ‘working in
common’ – relations that emerge the break down capitalist logic.
Another political moment can be found in the way many Australians continue to support
Australia’s refugees. When elected, the former Rudd Government promised a more humane
approach to dealing with refugees – an approach that had become internationally renowned
for its cruelty under the previous Howard Government. The Australian government has
withheld a number of basic human rights from refugees in pursuing its policies of mandatory
detention, forced deportations and the rejection of refugee claims. Mandatory detention has
also meant that numerous refugees have been held in prison cells for years, including newly
born children. According to Cohen (2002), these policies have reverberated across the world
as a number of Australia’s positions are increasingly reflected in the policies of other
countries particularly throughout Europe.
By following such a path, Australia and other nations have turned even those with ‘legal’
asylum claims into ‘illegals’ – in a sense causing the criminalisation of refugees (CARD
2001). The result is that refugees have been persecuted twice – once in their homeland and
the second time as ‘illegals’ by the nations from whom they seek refuge (UNHCR 2002).
The Rudd Government, despite its pre-election commitments, has followed a similar path that
only seems to have accelerated since Julia Gillard replaced Rudd as prime minister (Eltham
2010). Despite this, a significant section of the population continues to resist and challenge
this position. It is here we can see a cross section of people working both as individual
citizens as well as part of a civil society network to harness their citizenship surplus and drive
change. This ranges from lobbying organisations such as Get-Up10, to labour unions
including the Maritime Union of Australia11 and more issue-focussed groups such as the
Refugee Action Collective12
10 See
. While such groups pursue actions in the formal ‘Political’
realm, many of their actions also take place in the everyday politics space where change
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/EndMandatoryDetention&id=1042 – accessed May 2010.
11 See http://www.mua.org.au/news/support-grows-for-union-stance-on-asylum-seekers/ - accessed May 2010.
12 See http://www.rac-vic.org/ - accessed May 2010.
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/EndMandatoryDetention&id=1042�
http://www.mua.org.au/news/support-grows-for-union-stance-on-asylum-seekers/�
http://www.rac-vic.org/�
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 87
occurs and many political moments are created. Here, we see the organisation of visits to
support those held in detention centres, as well as working to break myths about refugees.
Returning to Hardt and Negri’s (2004) concept of the multitude, such groups work ‘in
common’ to overcome the exploitation of such populations.
The challenge for both those aiming to promote progressive political change as well as
research it, is to both understand the complexity of shapes that emerge here, as well as why it
is difficult to harness its energy. How then can we build a notion of citizenship that is not
trapped by the capitalist and exploitative state apparatus, but will mobilise those who
currently feel excluded and disempowered, without discounting the heterogeneity of their
backgrounds? Achieving this is important to confront the various crises confronting our
world with the aim of a socially just and politically inclusive global society.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Professor Bob Hodge (University of
Western Sydney) in the development of these ideas. The research cited here is based on long-
term research projects undertaken in collaboration with the Whitlam Institute and Oxfam
Australia.
References
Aly, W. 2010, ‘On the Future of Conservatism’, Quarterly Essay 37, Black Inc, Melbourne.
Arvanitakis, J. 2007, The cultural commons of hope, VDG, Berlin.
Arvanitakis, J. 2010, ‘Anti-Environment Budget Draws Fire’, Newmatilda.com,
http://newmatilda.com/2010/05/13/labors-antienvironment-budget-draws-fire - accessed May
2010.
Arvanitakis, J. and Marren, S. 2008, Putting the politics back into Politics, Whitlam Institute, Sydney.
Bang, H.P. 2005, ‘Among Everyday makers and Expert Citizens’ in Janet Newman (ed.) Remaking
Governance, Policy Press, Bristol.
Bang, H.P. 2009, ‘'Yes we can': identity politics and project politics for a late-modern world’, Urban
Research & Practice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.117-137.
Barlow, M. and Clarke, T. 2001, Global Showdown, Vancouver, Stoddart publishing.
Brennan, T. 2002, ‘The Italian ideology’, in Balakrishnan, G. (ed.) Debating Empire, Verso Books,
London, pp.97-120.
Burkett, P. 1999, Marx and nature: a red and green perspective, Palgrave McMillan, London.
Callinicos, A. 2002, ‘Toni Negri in perspective’, in Balakrishnan, G. (ed.) Debating Empire, Verso
Books, London, pp.121-143.
CARD – Cambridge Shire Against Racism 2001, ‘Truth about refugees’, Press Release,
http://card.zambezi.org.uk/press/release-2001-10-19.html - accessed May 2005.
http://newmatilda.com/2010/05/13/labors-antienvironment-budget-draws-fire�
http://card.zambezi.org.uk/press/release-2001-10-19.html�
88 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011
Cohen, N. 2002, ‘How Gunboats Can Beat the Refugees; European Leaders Want to Copy Australia's
Policy for Keeping out Asylum-Seekers’, New Statesman, vol.131, 7 October 2002.
Colgan, P. 2010, ‘Survey shows voters’ loss of trust in Kevin Rudd’, The Punch, sourced from
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/survey-shows-voters-loss-of-trust-in-kevin-rudd/ -
accessed June 2011.
Collin, P. 2008, Young People and Democracy, Whitlam Institute, Sydney, Australia.
Davies, L. 2006, ‘Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action?’, Educational Review, vol.
58, no. 1, pp. 5 - 25
Della Porta, D. 2005, ‘Globalisations and Democracy’, Democratizations, vol.12, no.5, pp. 668-685.
Dreier, P. 2008, ‘Will Obama Inspire a New Generation of Organizers?’ Dissent Magazine, Spring
2008, http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1215 - accessed April 2010.
Eltham, B.2010, ‘Rudd Caves in on Refugees’, Newmatilda.com,
http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/12/rudd-caves-refugees - accessed April 2010.
Fernandez, L. 2009, ‘Regulating the Multitude: Legal Mechanisms for Controlling, Pacifying, and
Managing the Anti-Globalization Movement’, paper presented at the annual meeting of The
Law and Society, J.W. Marriott Resort, Las Vegas, 25 May 2009 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p17481_index.html - accessed February 2010.
Frank, T. 2010, ‘The Tea Parties Are No ‘Great Awakening’’, Wall Street Journal, 16 February 2010,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069780393147278.html -
accessed April 2010.
Haigh, B. 2009, ‘Racism in Australia’, The Drum, available at
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2588104.htm - accessed May 2010.
Hamilton, C. and Maddison, S. 2007, Silencing Dissent, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.
Hamsher, J. 2009, ‘The Corporate Lobbyists Behind the Tea Parties’, The Huffington Post, 13 April
2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/the-corporate-lobbyists-
b_b_186367.html - accessed April 2010.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2000, Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2004, Multitude, Penguin Press, New York.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2009, Commonwealth, Penguin Press, New York.
Hay, C. 2007, Why We Hate Politics, Polity Press, Malden, Ma.
Hay, C. 2009, ‘Disenchanted with democracy, pissed off with politics’, British Politics, vol. 4, pp.92–
99.
Hillygus, D.S. and Henderson M. 2010, ‘Political Issues and the Dynamics of Vote Choice in 2008’,
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, vol.20, no.2, pp. 241-269.
Hodge, B. and O'Carroll, J. 2006, Borderwork in multicultural Australia, Allen & Unwin, Crows
Nest, N.S.W.
Holston, J. 2007, Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil, Cloth,
California.
Isin, E. F. and Nielsen, G.M. 2008, Acts of Citizenship, Zed Books, London.
Jaensch, D., Brent, P. and Bowden, B. 2004, ‘Australian Political Parties in the Spotlight’,
Democratic Audit of Australia Report 4, Australian National University, Canberra.
Kingsnorth, P. 2003, One No, Many Yeses: A journey to the heart of the global resistance movement,
Simon & Schuster, London.
Knowlson, J. 1996, Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel Beckett, Bloomsbury, London.
Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W. 1994, ‘Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship
theory’, Ethics, vol.104, no.2, pp.352-81.
Li, Y. and Marsh, D. 2008, ‘New Forms of Political Participation: Searching for Expert Citizens and
Everyday Makers’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 38, pp.247–272.
Lorimer, D. 2008, ‘Global food crisis made in USA’, Direct Action, vol. 1, available at
http://directaction.org.au/issue1/global_food_crisis_made_in_usa - accessed May 2010.
McKnight, D. 2010, ‘Nothing new in government caving in to demands of miners’, The Age, 6 July
2010, sourced from http://bit.ly/jDIm9A - accessed July 2010.
Marr, D. 2007, ‘His Master's Voice - the corruption of public debate under Howard’, Quarterly Essay
26, Black Inc, Melbourne.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/survey-shows-voters-loss-of-trust-in-kevin-rudd/�
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1215�
http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/12/rudd-caves-refugees�
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p17481_index.html�
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069780393147278.html�
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2588104.htm�
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/the-corporate-lobbyists-b_b_186367.html�
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/the-corporate-lobbyists-b_b_186367.html�
http://directaction.org.au/issue1/global_food_crisis_made_in_usa�
http://bit.ly/jDIm9A�
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.3, No.2, 2011 89
Marsh, David, Therese O’Toole and Su Jones 2007, Young People and Politics in the UK, Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Moore, J.F. 2003, ‘The second superpower rears its beautiful head’, unpublished paper delivered 31
March 2003, Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School.
Mueller, D.C. 2002, ‘Defining Citizenship’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol.3, no.1, Article 6,
available at: http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol3/iss1/art6 - accessed May 2010.
Negri, A. 1991, Marx beyond Marx – Lessons of the Grundisse, Autonomedia/Pluto, London.
Nicolescu, B. 2006, ‘Transdisciplinarity - past, present and future’, in B. Haverkort & C. Reijntjes
(eds), Moving Worldviews: Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous
sustainable development, ETC/COMPAS, Leusden, pp. 142-166.
Norris, P. 2011, Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Portney, K.E., and O’Leary, L. 2007, Civic and Political Engagement of America’s Youth: National
Survey of Civic and Political Engagement of Young People, Tisch College, Tufts University,
Medford, MA.
Poynting, S. ‘2006, ‘What caused the Cronulla riot?’, Race & Class, vol.48, no.1, pp.85-92.
Stoker, G. 2006, ‘Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work’, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, UK.
Turner, B. 1993, ‘Contemporary problems in the theory of citizenship’, in Turner, B. (ed.) Citizenship
and social theory, Sage, London.
UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2002) “Basic Facts”, source from:
http://bit.ly/jmG9Si – accessed May 2004.
World Bank (2010) The Global Food Crisis – “The Silent Tsunami”, report available at
http://bit.ly/iNCvDF - accessed May 2010.
Wright, T. 2010, “The greatest challenge of our time now in the freezer”, Sydney Morning Herald, 27
April, p.12.
http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol3/iss1/art6�
http://bit.ly/jmG9Si�
http://bit.ly/iNCvDF�