The ALP and the Demise of the Two Party System
Australian Politics in Flux
by Sudha Hamilton
Discussion by political scribes, about the demise of the two party system in Australia, and in particular the waning of the Labor Party, is all the rage right now. Talk about the failure of the ALP to be a truly representative worker’s party, and its apparent hijacking by professional politburocrats, seems to be commentary long overdue. For the ALP began this transmutation way back with Whitlam in the late sixties and was the only means for them to be elected after 23 years of conservative government. They needed to expand out of an identity, locked into the union movement, and move toward one more representative of the rapidly expanding Australian middle class.
The Liberal Party has always had a less rigidly defined identity in Australia, and this is in part because it formed out of a merging of several political parties during the 1940’s. The United Australia Party, the Young Nationalists and the Australian Women’s National League all merged to form the Liberal Party of Australia. Under Robert Menzies it became the main conservative party, most often in coalition with its junior partner, the Country Party/National Party, and represented both big and small business, professionals, and all those aligned against socialism; who did not vote for those parties on the more extreme right. The Liberal Party was like the Holden car of politics, broadly Australian in its form and function.
The ALP carried some baggage from the past, through its union connections, which was perceived by many, in the Australian electorate, to be on the extreme side – communists on the parties executive – reds under the bed stuff, and, whether this was true or not, it was widely exploited by those on the conservative side of politics. The ALP needed to move further to the centre of the political spectrum and they successfully did this during the Hawke/Keating years in government. To represent a majority of Australians, it was important to be seen as a party, which was in tune with a better educated nation and a population involved in vocations outside that of factory and farm workers, miners and the like.
There has been a balancing act going on ever since, with the union movement on one hand and the emerging middle class intelligentsia on the other. The affluent inner city residents who have been tertiary educated and maintain a strongly held concern for those in the community who are worse off – Indigenous Australians, the unemployed, the poor and the sick – have traditionally supported Labor but are now looking for keener representation. They are moving to the Greens, who voice their concerns for the environment, for empowering disenfranchised sections of society like homosexuals, and a variety of other issues close to their heart. The Greens do not need to compromise their principles and are finding appeal as a party of greater integrity.
Australia and the ALP, in the first half of the twentieth century, has a pretty rum record of racial intolerance. The White Australia policy was broadly supported by both sides of politics during its time as a key immigration policy. Workers here in Australia have feared, and still do, fear losing their jobs and livelihoods to cheaper labour brought in from overseas through migration. These fears have also been easy to exploit by both sides of politics when it has suited them. I have always found it interesting that often the most virulent exponent of racial intolerance and anti-immigration views in this country is the most recent immigrant himself. Just try jumping in a cab in Sydney or Melbourne and listening to the banter coming from the taxi driver and what radio station he is often tuned into. I wonder if Alan Jones knows that some of his most ardent listeners are members of the same racial groups he is slagging off?
So what do you do when you find you have voters within your family, who hold opposite views on key issues, like immigration policy and the treatment of refugees? You compromise and make everyone a little unhappy! After three decades of this compromise I think the ALP as home for these disparate groups is wearing a bit thin. The two party parliamentary system itself, is I think, an outmoded one and leads to so much back room maneuvering, in its desperate need to appear to be presenting a united front on often highly complex policy debates. Why not have these debates in the parliament itself by a collection of multi-party delegates or representatives? This occurs in European nations like Germany and France, and would we say that these nations are hamstrung by their parliamentary situations? No more than in Australia I would say, it is just their debates are more upfront and in the public eye.
Will the ALP return to its roots and become once again the worker’s party? I seriously doubt it, as I cannot see a future for any party based on policy designed to favour the protectionist view point subscribed to by those wishing to maintain the status quo. Like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and the Tea Party in the USA, these anti-change parties, are destined to be short lived, loud and often spiteful in nature. With union membership in Australia down to around 17% of workers, a harder line by the ALP on issues like immigration, environment policy impact on industry, and maintaining government ownership of public utilities, would only hasten the narrowing of its representation.
With a woman now leading the ALP minority government and a highly intelligent, excellent communicator as well, the tricky job of compromise has never been in better hands. Despite this I think many Australians are sick of being represented by parties of compromise and long to hear some unadulterated rhetoric, declaring what they passionately stand for. They want an end to the ‘double speak’ of professional politics. How can you stand up and proudly say ‘I am for this,’ when you know that half of your voters are not for it but against it? The answer is you can’t ever!
I see a gradual move away from the two party system in this country and the continuing rise of the Greens and more single issue parties. If and when we get the National Broadband Network delivering faster Internet access to more Australians, all over the country, we may see an increase in the sophistication of voters. The Internet is rapidly becoming a much more effective way to deliver a more complex political message to voters and one in which they can exchange their own view point with political parties. The greater the exchange of information in the political process, the lessening of the power of fear based campaigns based on misinformation. Campaigns of this nature have flourished in Australia, feeding on our political disinterest and stupidity. Although predicting a rise in intelligent behaviour is always a risky proposition I really do think that greater access to information from a variety of sources can lead to a better political outcome.
We must remember that Australian political and parliamentary history began with world leading reform – with votes for non-land owners and then the vote for women – long before it happened in Britain and other so called democracies!
