Seven Parties
In my recent post on pluralism I hinted at a working array of as many as seven distinct political parties of medium size all having parliamentary representation. In this post I will discuss how Australia could ever develop a polity like that from present conditions. I will also acknowledge the limited likelihood of such changes and then pivot to recent changes that are in fact happening.
The strangest of the seven would be a communitarian party combining traditional cultural values with interventionist economics. The best fit in Australian history for this was the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) but they were limited by Roman Catholic identity. The oldest world religions have much in common, particularly in the face of an ever less religious society, but sectarian divides hamper collaboration. In multicultural Australia, ethno-religious groups face many of the same challenges and a party drawing on such community groups could have a small but persistent political role. One labour union - the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA) could transfer its loyalty to such a party.
Talking of unions naturally brings me to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) which had three debilitating schisms between 1916 and 1955 (the last one resulting in the DLP). Since then they have become expert at keeping a large and diverse membership united but what if a growing public focus on cost of living and the wealth gap were to result in a schism turning the technically socialist Labor Left faction into a separate party with its own affiliated unions? This would be welcomed by many.
Then there is the rest of the ALP, which could occupy the most moderate position among the seven parties I’m describing here. This position could be complemented by opening affiliation beyond unions to include other like-minded non-government organizations. Closer connections to - say - agricultural cooperatives for smallholding farmers could help such a party cross urban-rural divides and draw in some independent politicians who cater to such electorates.
The Australian Greens are the best fit for a progressive party in Australia and has grown well beyond its original support base in the environmental movement. It now holds something like a seventh of the Senate membership so already fits my notion of a medium sized party in that chamber. Its growth more recently has stalled and I wonder if this is due to public awareness of internal ructions arising from rival radical camps intent on total victory over particular issues. Any party can have problems with its more populist ideological hinterland but a calmer version of the Greens would be more effective.
Recently a network of like-minded independents dubbed 'teal' by the media (signifying pro-environmental candidates who can nonetheless take votes from the Liberal Party) have had success in many electorates. They draw on similar campaigning methods and funding sources and work together once elected but vary in precise ideology. However a best average fit for them is the small-l liberalism which in Australia is neglected by the Liberal Party itself. There has been talk of them becoming a coherent political party but that move would have both pros and cons. Party status and organization bring many benefits, but for many voters independence itself is appealing. However, a commitment to an all-issues conscience vote and a party structure that respects local autonomy could address 'party machine' accusations.
The Liberal Party of Australia and its predecessor parties benefitted from successive mergers in the first half of last century. These resulted over time in a party of the establishment that only recently has started to suffer from a wave of defections. The party has drawn power from its long-standing coalition with the smaller National Party of Australia but in other ways this marriage has hampered its own identity. The two coalition parties recently toyed with separation but it never lasted long. I think this was a mistake. The Liberals could better combat a loss of seats to teals if they stood alone as a party that is pro-business but otherwise less conservative.
The National Party of Australia could also do better as a separate party serving rural interests (and even urbanites fond of rural Australian imagery). Free of the Liberals they could be traditional conservatives less beholden to urban big businesses. Threatening to bust the supermarket duopoly that dominates Australian farmers and consumers was a difficult thing for them to do with the Liberals. They could more openly oppose what they call 'mass migration' and thereby blunt the effect of another party I have so far excluded from my discussion. But I will come back to them shortly.
The likelihood of all this is tiny. Each speculated change happening would render others less likely as each party detracts from a need for the parties adjacent to it. Then there is the electoral method to consider. Our Senate proportional representation quota (six senators per state in a normal election) could almost fit my model, but the House of Representatives is the site of government and the focus of most media attention. Overseas one generally needs proportional representation in all chambers to support many parties. There are exceptions of course - both the United Kingdom and Canada lack proportional representation and yet have more than a few parties. But they tend to be somehow grounded in the structure of society. Maybe they have a long history of connection to particular provinces or demographics or sectors. Having a whole lot of new parties form or reform at once is the pipe dream of very few of us.
So far I have only considered political shifts within the shared ideological space of a pluralistic polity. But right now we are witnessing a movement of votes into the populist ideological hinterland beyond the Coalition. The ultra-conservative One Nation is once more making waves and this time it seems more significant. Key one-time Coalition figures have defected to them. Many voters have swung to them in recent state elections or by-elections. Opinion polls suggest they could become the new opposition replacing the Liberals & Nationals. Madness I say! One Nation has a long history of performing well between general elections but faltering once a full nationwide campaign comes along. They also have a rotten track record on candidates clashing with each other then defecting. Will a larger number of parliamentarians change that? Will a new breed of political careerests supplant the dodgy characters we have come to expect from that party? If they do will they necessarily do much better?
I’m too old now to have much confidence in predicting the behavour of huge numbers of voters. I do hope the current scare will fade but for that to happen there will have to be civil conversations on the ground with anyone who may be considering voting for One Nation. And in this era of semi-virtual parallel political camps I suspect that is a more difficult task than it has ever been.
The strangest of the seven would be a communitarian party combining traditional cultural values with interventionist economics. The best fit in Australian history for this was the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) but they were limited by Roman Catholic identity. The oldest world religions have much in common, particularly in the face of an ever less religious society, but sectarian divides hamper collaboration. In multicultural Australia, ethno-religious groups face many of the same challenges and a party drawing on such community groups could have a small but persistent political role. One labour union - the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA) could transfer its loyalty to such a party.
Talking of unions naturally brings me to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) which had three debilitating schisms between 1916 and 1955 (the last one resulting in the DLP). Since then they have become expert at keeping a large and diverse membership united but what if a growing public focus on cost of living and the wealth gap were to result in a schism turning the technically socialist Labor Left faction into a separate party with its own affiliated unions? This would be welcomed by many.
Then there is the rest of the ALP, which could occupy the most moderate position among the seven parties I’m describing here. This position could be complemented by opening affiliation beyond unions to include other like-minded non-government organizations. Closer connections to - say - agricultural cooperatives for smallholding farmers could help such a party cross urban-rural divides and draw in some independent politicians who cater to such electorates.
The Australian Greens are the best fit for a progressive party in Australia and has grown well beyond its original support base in the environmental movement. It now holds something like a seventh of the Senate membership so already fits my notion of a medium sized party in that chamber. Its growth more recently has stalled and I wonder if this is due to public awareness of internal ructions arising from rival radical camps intent on total victory over particular issues. Any party can have problems with its more populist ideological hinterland but a calmer version of the Greens would be more effective.
Recently a network of like-minded independents dubbed 'teal' by the media (signifying pro-environmental candidates who can nonetheless take votes from the Liberal Party) have had success in many electorates. They draw on similar campaigning methods and funding sources and work together once elected but vary in precise ideology. However a best average fit for them is the small-l liberalism which in Australia is neglected by the Liberal Party itself. There has been talk of them becoming a coherent political party but that move would have both pros and cons. Party status and organization bring many benefits, but for many voters independence itself is appealing. However, a commitment to an all-issues conscience vote and a party structure that respects local autonomy could address 'party machine' accusations.
The Liberal Party of Australia and its predecessor parties benefitted from successive mergers in the first half of last century. These resulted over time in a party of the establishment that only recently has started to suffer from a wave of defections. The party has drawn power from its long-standing coalition with the smaller National Party of Australia but in other ways this marriage has hampered its own identity. The two coalition parties recently toyed with separation but it never lasted long. I think this was a mistake. The Liberals could better combat a loss of seats to teals if they stood alone as a party that is pro-business but otherwise less conservative.
The National Party of Australia could also do better as a separate party serving rural interests (and even urbanites fond of rural Australian imagery). Free of the Liberals they could be traditional conservatives less beholden to urban big businesses. Threatening to bust the supermarket duopoly that dominates Australian farmers and consumers was a difficult thing for them to do with the Liberals. They could more openly oppose what they call 'mass migration' and thereby blunt the effect of another party I have so far excluded from my discussion. But I will come back to them shortly.
The likelihood of all this is tiny. Each speculated change happening would render others less likely as each party detracts from a need for the parties adjacent to it. Then there is the electoral method to consider. Our Senate proportional representation quota (six senators per state in a normal election) could almost fit my model, but the House of Representatives is the site of government and the focus of most media attention. Overseas one generally needs proportional representation in all chambers to support many parties. There are exceptions of course - both the United Kingdom and Canada lack proportional representation and yet have more than a few parties. But they tend to be somehow grounded in the structure of society. Maybe they have a long history of connection to particular provinces or demographics or sectors. Having a whole lot of new parties form or reform at once is the pipe dream of very few of us.
So far I have only considered political shifts within the shared ideological space of a pluralistic polity. But right now we are witnessing a movement of votes into the populist ideological hinterland beyond the Coalition. The ultra-conservative One Nation is once more making waves and this time it seems more significant. Key one-time Coalition figures have defected to them. Many voters have swung to them in recent state elections or by-elections. Opinion polls suggest they could become the new opposition replacing the Liberals & Nationals. Madness I say! One Nation has a long history of performing well between general elections but faltering once a full nationwide campaign comes along. They also have a rotten track record on candidates clashing with each other then defecting. Will a larger number of parliamentarians change that? Will a new breed of political careerests supplant the dodgy characters we have come to expect from that party? If they do will they necessarily do much better?
I’m too old now to have much confidence in predicting the behavour of huge numbers of voters. I do hope the current scare will fade but for that to happen there will have to be civil conversations on the ground with anyone who may be considering voting for One Nation. And in this era of semi-virtual parallel political camps I suspect that is a more difficult task than it has ever been.
Labels: Political
posted by Dan at
31.5.26
|
0 Comments
