Political Strikes : Three Burning Questions

Abstract

The current state of the debate about political strikes in Australia is examined, looking particularly at three questions which merit urgent academic attention. In each instance it is suggested that the valid position may be some what different from that which many government and press spokesmen currently assume to be self-evident. It is also argued that the designation "political strike" is best reserved for reference to industrial action which has as its subject matter, an issue of broader significance than the narrow "traditional" sphere of trade union concerns ( wages and working conditions). The phrase has frequently been used in the past in connection with the hidden political motives of the strikers. Secondly, it is advanced that the economic consequences of political strikes may be far less than is commonly supposed, though any conclusive data on this question is difficult to obtain. Finally, the question of the legitimacy of political industrial action in a liberal democracy is considered. Three approaches to legitimacy in liberal democracy are noted—that of Rawlsian distributive justice, that of legitimacy residing in the will of the majority, and that of pluralism. It is suggested that in each instance a case for the legitimacy of political strikes can be made.