tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/comparative-politics-7513/articlesComparative politics – The Conversation2017-08-25T01:49:40Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/816122017-08-25T01:49:40Z2017-08-25T01:49:40ZWas embracing the market a necessary evil for Labour and Labor?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179766/original/file-20170726-11301-tchofs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wayne Swan has drawn a parallel between the the ALP's 'Laborism' and New Labour's 'Third Way' in the UK.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/4739085177/">Number 10/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series, a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> between The Conversation and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian Labor Party and Britain’s Labour Party are in vastly different places. While the ALP <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2017/jun/14/the-guardian-essential-report-14-june-results">holds a firm lead</a> in opinion polls over the Coalition government, its British counterparts <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-2017-uk-election-polls-underestimated-labour-79513?sa=google&sq=UK+election&sr=1">pulled off a shock</a> election result in June. Its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, proved critics wrong and <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-result-vote-share-increased-1945-clement-attlee-a7781706.html">increased</a> Labour’s vote share more than any other party leader since 1945.</p>
<p>Although Labour was not able to form government, Corbyn’s “win” signalled the party’s existential crisis had come full circle. His success as leader can be seen as a fundamental rejection of Tony Blair’s centrist policies, or “<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-labour-20-years-on-assessing-the-legacy-of-the-tony-blair-years-76884?sa=google&sq=Third+Way+blair&sr=1">Third Way</a>”, and a return to the party’s democratic socialist foundations.</p>
<p>Ed Miliband’s defeat at the 2015 UK election marked the beginning of a radical turn back to the left for Labour. This shift led to various reports about <a href="https://theconversation.com/progressives-should-accept-corbyns-triumph-its-the-price-of-democracy-66120">internal conflict</a> within the party. </p>
<p>All of this may seem remarkably familiar to Australians, after the now-infamous ALP <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-leadership-war-is-over-where-to-from-here-for-the-alp-15564?sa=google&sq=ALP+leadership&sr=7">leadership spills</a> between 2010 and 2013. Labor MPs ousted two sitting prime ministers.</p>
<p>What appears to be a critical juncture for both parties was their respective embrace of the free market and economic liberalisation. But was this move a necessary evil for both parties to return to government? Or was it a response to broader global economic liberalisation? Or a genuine attempt to achieve equity through trickle-down economics?</p>
<p>The answer lies somewhere in between.</p>
<h2>Neoliberalism or ‘Laborism’?</h2>
<p>Labor prime ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are perhaps best remembered for the economic reforms that opened Australia’s economy to the world after decades of protectionism and stagflation. </p>
<p>Arguably, Gough Whitlam initiated these reforms. After inheriting one of the most protected and least competitive economies in the world, Whitlam took the first steps toward liberalisation through the flat 25% reduction of tariffs.</p>
<p>Hawke and Keating continued this economic liberalisation by further reducing tariffs, deregulating the financial sector, floating the Australian dollar, and privatising state assets.</p>
<p>Within a wider context, the shift toward more economically liberal policies was part of a move within the English-speaking world toward the Anglo-American model of neoliberalism, as promoted and implemented by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.</p>
<p>However, in retrospect, it would appear the ALP is reluctant to label these reforms as neoliberal. Recently, Australia’s former federal treasurer, Wayne Swan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/14/the-hawke-keating-agenda-was-laborism-not-neoliberalism-and-is-still-a-guiding-light">argued</a> that Whitlam, Hawke and Keating’s agendas were not strictly neoliberal; they were an example of “Laborism”.</p>
<p>Swan explained that neoliberalism was a poor description of Labor’s economically liberal reforms because, ultimately, their aim was to create greater equity in Australia through trickle-down economics that would lift the standard of living for working-class Australians alongside wealthier citizens.</p>
<p>Swan also pointed to other social reforms that were implemented alongside the tariff cuts and privatisation, such as the reintroduction of Medicare. Such social policies were not, he argued, necessarily in line with what he believed to be the broader neoliberal doctrine.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179768/original/file-20170726-2133-1uwdwc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bob Hawke and Paul Keating’s reforms opened Australia’s economy to the world after decades of protectionism and stagflation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bentley Smith/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tony Blair and the ‘Third Way’</h2>
<p>Swan drew a parallel between the ALP’s “Laborism” and the “Third Way” of New Labour in the UK. </p>
<p>Blair crafted the “Third Way” with the view that old class divisions between the “left” and “right” were redundant. He saw a greater move toward the centre as not only necessary but practical.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/10/labour.uk1">original argument</a> for a “Third Way” came from Anthony Giddens, who argued that reformist governments could no longer rely on the left-right binary in the face of powerful globalising forces. To adapt, the traditionally left-leaning Labour Party would need to adopt more conservative policies.</p>
<p>In moving toward the Third Way, New Labour cast aside traditional party preferences for Keynesian economic policies that relied heavily on state intervention. Instead, it looked to the ALP for lessons in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-the-british-came-saw-and-helped-rudd/2007/12/16/1197740090746.html?page=2">“marrying economic openness with social justice”</a>.</p>
<p>In doing so, Blair and his chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, introduced reforms that made the Bank of England independent and allowed for freer movement of labour between the UK and the European Union.</p>
<p>It appeared New Labour was continuing some of the economic reforms begun by previous Conservative governments. Yet Blair also declared his party’s commitment to a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/blair-well-build-a-welfare-state-for-the-21st-century-1138878.html">“21st-century welfare system”</a>, which was directly aimed at reducing the perceived inequities and social divisions that Thatcher’s policies created.</p>
<h2>A necessary evil?</h2>
<p>“Neoliberalism” often gets used as a catch-all description for the negative aspects of the modern world. Hence the ALP and Labour’s reluctance to refer to their policies as being “neoliberal”.</p>
<p>One of New Labour’s legacies has been a perceived failure of the “Third Way”. It has been argued that New Labour’s economic policies <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10992792/How-did-Tony-Blair-leave-the-British-economy.html">set the UK up</a> for a spectacular fall during the global financial crisis.</p>
<p>Corbyn, along with the movement that supported his rise, defined his policies as being a return to the party’s democratic socialist roots. His success was an inherent rejection of the Third Way.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MCRpc_8Tu7c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A song for Jeremy Corbyn.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ALP, on the other hand, appears content to continue on the path of Hawke and Keating. The reason for this could lie in the relative success of the ALP’s decision to embrace the free market. Economist Thomas Piketty <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/14/the-hawke-keating-agenda-was-laborism-not-neoliberalism-and-is-still-a-guiding-light">estimated</a> the share of income going to the top 1% is about 14-15% in Britain – but only 9-10% in Australia. </p>
<p>And unlike other Western economies such as the UK and the US, Australia is yet to undergo a recession. One of the factors that have been credited for this was the economic policies of former Liberal prime minister John Howard; Howard was continuing the neoliberal program first set out by Hawke and Keating. </p>
<p>Howard was succeeded by Kevin Rudd. His government’s stimulus programs of 2008-10 were credited by most economists, both local and international, for helping Australia avoiding a post-global-financial-crisis recession.</p>
<p>So, was embracing the market a necessary evil? While it’s easy to assess this with the gift of hindsight, it’s important to place Britain and Australia’s move toward economic liberalisation within the context of a broader global shift towards neoliberalism. </p>
<p>Both countries had significant recessions during the 1970s. Britain required IMF assistance <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/11484844-b565-11df-9af8-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e1">in 1976</a>; Australia experienced sustained “stagflation”.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system">The Bretton Woods system</a> had collapsed, and it appeared Keynesian economics had failed both countries. A shift toward freer markets appeared to be the radical change that was needed to remedy the economic malaise.</p>
<p>But it can also be argued that neither party was truly neoliberal. Both created an ideology that attempted to marry economic liberalisation with the democratic socialist values upon which they were founded. </p>
<p>The varying successes of “Laborism” and the “Third Way” not only tell of how two democratic socialist parties sought to modernise through the creation of new ideologies, but also point toward why the ALP has remained firmly in the centre while Labour has taken a sharp turn back to the left.</p>
<p>While both parties may have set out to modernise and renew their ideologies, the attempts by the ALP and Labour to marry the old and new precipitated two separate identity crises, which have carried through to the present day. </p>
<p>Especially in light of Corbyn’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-jeremy-corbyn-an-open-letter-on-moving-on-from-glorious-defeat-79321">election performance</a>, questions about whether Labour’s return to the left is still symptomatic of an identity crisis or a solid acceptance of a return to its roots are louder than ever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keshia Jacotine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While both parties may have set out to modernise and renew their ideologies, the ALP’s and Labour’s attempts to marry the old and new instead precipitated two separate identity crises.Keshia Jacotine, MPhil Candidate and Teaching Associate in Politics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/788132017-06-09T10:08:28Z2017-06-09T10:08:28ZRise of ‘anti-politics’ produces surprise result in the UK election – and it’s playing a role in Australia, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173101/original/file-20170609-20846-159b2e0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Theresa May's gamble on calling an early election has not paid off.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Toby Melville</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A little over a week before the 2017 UK general election, the improbable occurred. A <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/final-yougov-opinion-poll-predicts-hung-parliament-in-2017-general-election-m5nvx2vwm">poll</a> indicated that Prime Minister Theresa May <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/uk-election-surprise-of-the-campaign-is-doubt-over-the-result/8599474">could lose</a> the Conservative majority. The shadow of a hung parliament was cast over the UK parliament again. It was a claim credible enough to the markets for the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/sterling-drops-poll-suggests-hung-parliament-election/">sterling to drop</a>. Most political analysts, however, did not take it seriously. </p>
<p>But these are unconventional times. There is an unlikely president in the White House. No pundit predicted Brexit. And now, a Labour Party led by an “anti-politician” in Jeremy Corbyn has delivered a hung parliament.</p>
<p>While Theresa May will soon be on her way to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen’s permission to form minority government, the unlikelihood of a stable coalition government means Britons may be heading back to the polls much sooner than they expected.</p>
<h2>A win for anti-politics?</h2>
<p>“Anti-politics” is often used to describe:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a growing distrust of career politicians; </p></li>
<li><p>hatred of partisan politics; and </p></li>
<li><p>disaffection with democracy. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Among its causes is complacency in rich Western nations, as well as disinterest in institutions (especially from the young). Many see anti-politics as a tide sweeping away much that was previously taken for granted.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z1msuGsusQY">leading UK scholars</a>, anti-politics is not a democratic de-alignment as much as the result of political realignment. In other words, it is not that we are turning off democracy – but that we are turning away from political elites and major party politics. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2017.1298718">Australian survey</a> found righteous indignation among its citizens. This anger is directed at parties and politicians who are swayed by the quest for power and seem to break promises with impunity. </p>
<p>One of the significant lessons from the 2017 UK poll is that “anti-politics” voters are no longer welded on to any one party. There is growing volatility in the UK electorate. In the 1960s, less than 10% of voters changed their allegiance between elections. In yesterday’s poll it was closer to 40%. </p>
<p>Thanks to anti-politics, gone are the days when voters supported a political party in the way they might support the family football team.</p>
<p>But how then do we explain the strongest combined major party vote for two decades (Conservative 43 / Labour 40)? Does this suggest a return to two-party politics?</p>
<p>No, because one side – Labour – was playing anti-politics.</p>
<h2>Corbyn’s success in context</h2>
<p>There is no doubt that no-one expected the dramatic growth in the Labour vote. But there are two stories to tell. </p>
<p>First, the support for Corbyn came against economic and political convention. Labour focused on larger cities and university towns, targeting students, service industries and the public sector. It promised to end austerity, nationalise utilities, increase taxes, and invest heavily in public services. It was an anti-political appeal.</p>
<p>Second, the Labour vote was a big enough to hamper the Conservatives, but not much more.</p>
<p>Despite Labour’s celebration over approximately 30 seats, the 2017 result is only eight seats more than when it lost power in 2010. The reality is that Labour is little closer to the 60-plus seats it needs for power than it was last week. What will make this a potentially insurmountable gap is an unacknowledged divide in the UK electorate.</p>
<h2>A deeper UK divide</h2>
<p>Recently, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.12228/abstract">UK researchers</a> analysed the 2015 UK election results. They found that anti-politics attitudes spread across all voter groups. But what was really challenging for parties was not a traditional split along class lines, but a growing “bifurcation” in the vote of cosmopolitan and provincial England.</p>
<p>Cosmopolitan voters had benefited more from globalisation, were more outward-looking, pluralist and open to the EU. In contrast, those in provincial regions of economic decline were more inward-looking, illiberal, and negative toward immigration. </p>
<p>Perhaps there are no great surprises here. But what is interesting is that this division had real effects that challenged political parties. In other words, these shifts made it harder for larger parties to develop a platform that spans these “two Englands”.</p>
<p>In 2015, this resulted in cosmopolitan votes for Labour and the Greens. It saw provincial support for UKIP and an element of both for the Conservatives. </p>
<p>This suggests that the Conservatives’ 2015 success was due to being more adept at targeting appeals to both cosmopolitan and provisional electorates, while being more pragmatic around taking nationally consistent positions.</p>
<h2>What happened in the 2017 general election?</h2>
<p>While the Conservatives won 5.5% more of the vote (but lost a dozen seats), Labour won a 7% swing in cosmopolitan areas that had voted Conservative and “Remain”. While participation was up 2.6% overall (up from 66.1% in 2015), it rose by over 5% in seats Labour won.</p>
<p>On the back of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/07/maps-charts-showing-state-play-eve-general-election/">record youth enrolment</a> to vote, Labour surged in the youth vote in cosmopolitan areas. Meanwhile, Conservative London cosmopolitan seats changed hands, while Labour won university seats like Sheffield Hallam from the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>Yet the challenge for Labour remains. Its wins were cosmopolitan, with little progress in the provincial areas that it needs for a majority in the future.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Conservative appeal to provincial England through an emphasis on Brexit and bringing down net migration were successfully targeted at a collapsing UKIP and winning some SNP seats. But it compromised the Tories’ cosmopolitan wins from 2015.</p>
<p>Here lies the challenge for all large party leaders: how do they connect with prevailing moods in both cosmopolitan and provincial areas when they diverge in such opposite directions?</p>
<h2>What might this mean for Australia?</h2>
<p>It is not unreasonable to suggest Australia may be seeing its own version of the “bifurcation” challenge. </p>
<p>Australian demographer Bernard Salt has already identified a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-08/uk-election-surprise-of-the-campaign-is-doubt-over-the-result/8599474">tale of two nations</a>. And as Ken Henry recently observed, the Australian population continues to <a href="https://news.nab.com.au/nab-chairman-ken-henrys-speech-at-ceda/">grow beyond the capacity</a> of existing capital cities and puts pressure on economic performance and infrastructure planning. This can only contribute to “two Australias” that are divided by geography, economic opportunity and even identity. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, some states (hit hard by globalisation) have turned to provincial, protectionist and issue-based politicians. And, as national votes become harder to span, the notion of slim majority as mandate will become even more problematic.</p>
<p>Many argue that former prime minister John Howard’s ability to win traditional Labor voters was at the heart of his sustained electoral success.</p>
<p>However, the challenge for today’s Australian leaders is more complex than it was during the Howard era. Not only must they manage competing ideologies in their parties and span diverging nations, they must also respond to a volatile electorate that is decidedly “anti-politics”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78813/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The stunning UK election result – a hung parliament – may be another sign of the rise of ‘anti-politics’, particularly among the young.Brenton Prosser, Visiting Fellow, Australian National UniversityGerry Stoker, Fellow and Centenary Professor, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/739082017-03-10T05:28:36Z2017-03-10T05:28:36ZBanning foreign political donations won’t fix all that ails our system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160247/original/image-20170310-2293-1fjq65j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull has foreshadowed changes to Australia's foreign donations laws.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A federal parliamentary committee has today <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024053/toc_pdf/Secondinterimreportontheinquiryintotheconductofthe2016federalelectionForeignDonations.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">recommended</a> foreign citizens and entities be banned from making political donations. Such a ban will not apply to dual Australian citizens in Australia or overseas, or to permanent residents. </p>
<p>The report also recommended further investigation into a ban on foreign donations to other political players, such as activist groups like GetUp!. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2016Election/Report_1/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024053%2f24544">Labor</a> and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2016Election/Report_1/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024053%2f24545">the Greens</a> separately produced dissenting reports that supported a ban on foreign political donations, but rejected extending it to activist groups. </p>
<p>Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2016Election/Report_1/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024053%2f24537">rejected</a> a ban on foreign donations. He claims there is no evidence of a problem specific to foreign donations.</p>
<p>It’s unclear whether such a ban would be compatible with our constitutionally protected freedom of political communication. And banning foreign donations is just one element in the reform Australia’s system desperately needs.</p>
<h2>Why ban foreign donations?</h2>
<p>The rationale for banning foreign donations is to stop the threat of foreign interests undermining Australian democracy. The concern is that foreign people or entities can exercise an unduly large influence on our politicians through generous donations. And we don’t want our politicians beholden to foreign powers at the expense of Australian interests.</p>
<p>Other liberal democracies similar to Australia, like the UK, US and Canada, <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-australia-one-of-the-few-countries-worldwide-to-accept-foreign-political-donations-65343">ban foreign donations</a>. New Zealand caps them at NZ$1,500. </p>
<p>The British laws banning foreign donations were introduced <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3236088/Funding-scandals-led-to-foreign-donation-law.html">after scandals</a> arising from the government accepting donations from dubious sources. After the Conservative Party refused to send British troops to intervene to stop Serbian atrocities in the Bosnian War, the party received a donation of £18,000 from London associates of the then Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.</p>
<p>The Tories also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/aug/22/tories-return-donation-asil-nadir">received £440,000</a> from the fugitive Polly Peck tycoon, Asil Nadir, who fled to northern Cyprus in 1993 after being charged with fraud.</p>
<p>In Australia, the Liberal Party <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-only-now-are-we-finding-out-who-the-biggest-donors-in-an-election-year-were-70482">received</a> major foreign political donations in the last financial year. Hong Kong Kingson Investment and Kingold Group, two companies owned by property billionaire Chau Chak Wing, gave A$700,000 in total. Kingson Investment also gave A$100,000 to Labor. </p>
<p>Yet, in 2015-16, foreign donations were a paltry 2.6% of total donations to political parties. In the last seven election periods from 1998-99 to 2016, foreign donations <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/taking-xenophobia-out-of-the-political-donation-debate">have amounted to</a> between 0.03% to 6.13% of total donations. </p>
<h2>Is a ban constitutional?</h2>
<p>Australia has a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/34.html">constitutionally protected</a> freedom to communicate on political matters. This allows us to make a free and informed choice about who we vote for to represent us in parliament. </p>
<p>Accordingly, the High Court has ruled that any limitations on the freedom of political communication must be proportionate and have a legitimate purpose. So, any ban on political donations has to be carefully limited to be compatible with the constitutional freedom of political communication.</p>
<p>A ban on foreign donations clearly limits political communication by restricting the source of funds available to political parties and candidates to meet the costs of political communication. Banning foreign donations would seem to have a legitimate purpose: to reduce undue foreign influence on Australian politics and public policy. </p>
<p>The bigger issue is whether banning foreign donations is a proportional response to justify limiting freedom of political communication. The High Court has devised a very complex multi-pronged test for assessing proportionality. This includes considering whether:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>there is a rational connection to the purpose of limiting the freedom;</p></li>
<li><p>there is a compelling alternative that is less restrictive; and </p></li>
<li><p>the importance of the purpose served by the law outweighs the extent of the restriction on the freedom. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>It is difficult to predict how the court might rule on this. </p>
<p>The High Court has previously permitted laws that banned donations from a certain class of people. The court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/34.html">has upheld</a> a New South Wales scheme that banned donations from property developers due to the history of corruption in the state. This means it is possible to ban donations from a certain group, such as foreigners, where there is evidence of a serious risk of corruption. </p>
<p>But in this particular case, there was evidence of corruption implicating property developers borne out in <a href="https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/investigations/past-investigations/investigationdetail/220">several reports</a> by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is unclear whether it can be proven there has been corruption in Australia due to foreign donations.</p>
<p>Australia does not have a federal anti-corruption body that has investigated these issues. Also, the proportion of foreign donations in Australia is small. There may not be enough proof that foreigners pose a particular threat to the integrity of the Australian electoral system. This means the High Court may strike down a law banning foreign donations as unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Casting the net too wide and banning all donations from non-citizens, unions and corporations will be unconstitutional. The High Court has <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/58.html">struck down</a> a scheme in NSW that only allowed donations from individuals on the electoral roll, thus banning donations from corporations, unions and non-citizens. There was no evidence that donations by non-voters had a greater corrupting influence than other donations.</p>
<h2>What about activist groups?</h2>
<p>A ban on foreign donations to activist groups reduces the ability of these groups to engage in political communication; it decreases their funds to launch political campaigns seeking change in government policy and decision-making. The ban’s purpose would again be to reduce foreign influences on Australia’s political system. </p>
<p>The ban may not be a proportionate response to reducing the influence of foreign interests on domestic policy. </p>
<p>Again, there is unlikely to be evidence that foreigners donating to activist groups corrupts Australia’s electoral system. There is a more tenuous link between activist groups and foreign influence on domestic policy, compared to political parties who are elected to government. </p>
<p>Also, the proportion of foreign donations to activist groups might not be significant. GetUp! <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/foreign-donors-keep-out-of-oz-politics-turnbull-20170201-gu2wdk">receives</a> about 1% of its annual income, and about A$300,000 in the past two years, from foreign sources.</p>
<p>So, a ban on foreign donations to activist groups may not be constitutionally valid.</p>
<h2>Will this fix the system?</h2>
<p>If ruled constitutional, a ban will certainly reduce the impact of overseas interests on domestic policy. </p>
<p>But our system needs more holistic change. For one, the donation rules do not promote <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbulls-1-75-million-donation-is-bad-news-for-australian-democracy-72358">political equality</a>. Caps on political donations of, say, A$1,000 would better level the playing field, and are more likely to be constitutional. </p>
<p>Donations should be disclosed in real time, rather than once a year. The rules also need to be tightened to eliminate loopholes, like donation-splitting between associated entities. </p>
<p>Governments of all stripes need to do more to reduce the influence of money in our politics and give people a more equal voice in democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73908/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The rationale for banning foreign donations is to stop the threat of overseas interests undermining Australian democracy.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701352016-12-12T23:09:14Z2016-12-12T23:09:14ZWe should follow other countries’ lead on hate speech by changing 18C<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149579/original/image-20161212-31379-nvux88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Section 18C goes further than the laws of many other democracies by applying to 'offensive' and 'insulting' speech.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has held the first public hearing of <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia">its inquiry</a> into <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">Section 18C</a> of the Racial Discrimination Act: the law that makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.</p>
<p>Although there has been a great deal of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/section-18c-7896">debate about 18C</a>, surprisingly little has been said about how other democratic countries deal with hate speech. Looking at the laws of other democracies can help us better understand our own – what is unusual, what works well, and what may need to be changed.</p>
<p>Most democracies recognise that hate speech laws are important to protect the dignity of minority groups and maintain a successful multicultural society. But 18C also goes further by applying to “offensive” and “insulting” speech.</p>
<p>Changing these words to “vilify”, as Human Rights Commission head Gillian Triggs <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/08/gillian-triggs-says-replacing-insult-and-offend-could-strengthen-18c">has suggested</a>, would make 18C clearer and bring it more in line with the laws of other democracies. It would also be a minor change that would allow 18C to continue its important work in curbing hateful acts.</p>
<h2>Lessons from abroad</h2>
<p>Among other democracies, the US is unusual in allowing for very limited restrictions on hate speech. The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a> to the US Constitution says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The US Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html">has held</a> that the law may prohibit “fighting words” – or words that are likely to incite “imminent lawless action” – but can’t go further than that. This standard is far less restrictive of free expression than 18C.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/case.html">has also held</a> that even where the law prohibits “fighting words”, it cannot discriminate between different viewpoints by protecting particular groups against “imminent lawless action”. </p>
<p>So, the law cannot – for example – prohibit racist fighting words without also prohibiting non-racist fighting words; either all fighting words should be prohibited or none at all. The state must remain neutral between competing ideas, even if some of these ideas are racist.</p>
<p>Applying this approach, the US Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/">overturned the conviction</a> of a Klu Klux Klan member who had called for the return of African-Americans to Africa and Jews to Israel, and the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/case.html">conviction</a> of a group of teenagers who had placed a burning cross in the yard of an African-American family.</p>
<p>However, very few democracies have followed the lead of the US on this issue. Most democracies recognise that the state can take sides in the contest of ideas and promote the values of respect and tolerance through hate speech laws.</p>
<p>In Canada, for example, the <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93">law</a> prohibits public statements that wilfully promote hatred towards identifiable groups – a standard that is also less restrictive of free expression than 18C. </p>
<p>Canada’s Supreme Court upheld this law in a <a href="http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.do">case</a> where a school teacher had promoted hatred of Jews in his lessons. The court said the law’s purpose was to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… bolster the notion of mutual respect necessary in a nation which venerates the equality of all persons.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Likewise, in the UK the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III">law</a> prohibits “threatening, abusive, or insulting” words or behaviour. The reference to “insulting” words might sound like 18C, but the law also says the person must intend to “stir up racial hatred”, or it must be likely that “racial hatred” will be “stirred up”. These words make the law less restrictive of free expression than 18C.</p>
<p>Germany goes further than many democracies in limiting free expression by, for example, prohibiting the display of Nazi flags and badges. But even the German <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1241">hate speech law</a> does not apply to expression that is merely offensive. Instead, it refers to attacks on the:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously degrading or defaming parts of the population …</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Is 18C too broad?</h2>
<p>From this snapshot, it is clear 18C is an unusual provision. Most hate speech laws do not apply to “offensive” or even “insulting” expression.</p>
<p>But 18C is also unusual in dealing with hate speech through the civil law rather than the criminal law. This means someone who breaches the law may have to apologise or pay damages, but doesn’t commit a crime. </p>
<p>In contrast, the laws in comparable countries outlined above are criminal laws. There are also exceptions to 18C, in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">Section 18D</a>.</p>
<p>The reason why hate speech laws don’t normally apply to “offensive” or even “insulting” speech is because democracies recognise that offence and insult are sometimes part of political debate. In a democracy, ideas should be open to challenge, even deeply-held ideas on sensitive issues. We should be concerned about laws that inhibit frank discussion, whether they are civil or criminal in nature.</p>
<p>Australia’s Federal Court has recognised this by <a href="http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2011/2011fca1103">interpreting</a> 18C so that it applies only to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… profound and serious effects, not be likened to mere slights. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This seems to strike to a good balance between free expression and the protection of minorities.</p>
<p>Some might say the Federal Court’s interpretation of 18C means that no change is necessary. But the law should be clear, especially when it is as controversial as 18C.</p>
<p>A minor change, substituting “vilify” for “offend” and “insult”, would bring 18C more in line with the laws in other democracies without undermining its effectiveness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70135/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Murray Wesson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A minor change, substituting ‘vilify’ for ‘offend’ and ‘insult’, would bring Section 18C more in line with similar laws in other democracies without undermining its effectiveness.Murray Wesson, Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/657992016-10-03T19:14:46Z2016-10-03T19:14:46ZIs protectionism a ‘siren song’ to the poor or to the wealthy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139369/original/image-20160927-20114-r2ny1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Those who are most likely to be interested in protectionism and curbing immigration are not necessarily the ones who are most vulnerable economically.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Carlo Allegri/Reuters</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With Britain <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-is-on-britain-votes-to-leave-the-eu-experts-respond-61576">voting to leave the European Union</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/defiant-hanson-will-test-a-coalition-government-61985">revival of One Nation</a> in Australia and Donald Trump continuing his campaign for the US presidency, it looks as if Western democracies are more interested than ever in closing their borders. </p>
<p>How do we explain this? </p>
<p>We live in an increasingly intertwined global economy. Whether we like it or not, we are more dependent on close relations with foreign markets than ever before in history. Why, then, would we want to weaken instead of strengthen our ties with other countries?</p>
<h2>The usual explanation</h2>
<p>Those in favour of protectionism typically provide economic reasons for their stance. The argument would be that in times of economic downturn, and scarcity more generally, we want to protect our local or domestic markets from foreign competition.</p>
<p>This reasoning is consistent with classic <a href="http://ed.ted.com/on/yzoXVpGM">realistic conflict theorising</a> from the 1950s. According to this social psychological theory, poverty, or the shrinking pool of resources during an economic crisis, intensifies competition between groups. </p>
<p>This then fuels a desire to protect the stressed resource pool by keeping out those with whom we do not want to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x/abstract">share our scarce resources</a> – such as foreign investors or immigrant workers. </p>
<p>From this, it follows logically that the people who should be most prone to fall into the trap of protectionism should be those who feel most vulnerable economically: the poor, unemployed or uneducated, or those who are hit hard by an economic recession. </p>
<p>Given their precarious position, these are the people who should be most fearful of losing out in the competition with migrant labour and are most concerned about not benefiting from globalisation.</p>
<h2>Protectionism appeals to the affluent too</h2>
<p>These dynamics are certainly forces to be reckoned with. However, looking more closely at support for Brexit in the UK and for populists like Hanson and Trump, it is clear that realistic conflict processes are only part of the explanation.</p>
<p>There is a growing body of evidence that suggests those who are most likely to be interested in protectionism and curbing immigration are not necessarily the ones who are most vulnerable economically.</p>
<p>In the UK, while the working class has been seen as responsible for the Brexit vote, the numbers <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id5564.pdf">tell a different story</a>. Two-thirds of those who turned out to vote were middle class. Of those, 59% voted to leave the EU. </p>
<p>Compare this to only 41% of working class who voted to leave and it is obvious that it is the middle class – not the working class – who enabled Brexit. It is also clear that most people who voted to leave live in the relatively prosperous south of England, not in the poorer north. </p>
<p>In the US, a large <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/">Gallup poll</a> found those who intend to vote for Trump have not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration. </p>
<p>This data also suggests Trump supporters, on average, <a href="http://www.cato.org/blog/trump-supporters-are-not-losers-globalization">do not have lower incomes</a>, nor are more likely to be unemployed. If anything, Trump supporters are — relatively speaking at least — economically better off than others in their community. </p>
<p>Similarly, Hanson’s remarkable electoral success in the late 1990s in Australia was not fuelled by a bleak economic situation. Prior to her election, Australia had had <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12258/abstract">five consecutive years of GDP growth</a> and a steady decline in unemployment. </p>
<p>What’s more, One Nation turned out to have considerable electoral appeal in Hanson’s home state of Queensland. Here, gross state product had been stable for two consecutive years, followed by two subsequent years of rapid economic growth from 1998 to 2000. </p>
<h2>More money, more problems?</h2>
<p>These data are in stark contrast with what one would predict on the basis of realistic conflict theorising. While analyses of xenophobia typically focus on the anxieties of the “have-nots”, these data suggest we should turn our attention also to the “haves”. </p>
<p>Likewise, it is fine to focus on economic hardship as a trigger for protectionism, but there is a growing body of work that suggests this analysis is incomplete. At times, it is economic prosperity that is associated with protectionism and anti-immigrant sentiments. </p>
<p>How, then, can we explain that wealth is associated with protectionism and support for populist leaders?</p>
<p>A growing body of work on the psychology of the privileged suggests the wealthy are not without anxieties of their own. In particular, the affluent may “feel poor” when they feel austerity measures have hit them, relatively speaking, harder than others. This leads to <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit">resentment and dissatisfaction</a>. </p>
<p>When affluent people feel they are not getting what they are entitled to, when they <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0139156">fear a decline in status</a>, or when they feel that their wealth is not growing fast enough, their support for protectionism becomes easier to understand.</p>
<p>Australia’s trade minister, Steven Ciobo, may well have been right when he said protectionism is “<a href="http://trademinister.gov.au/transcripts/Pages/2016/sc_tr_160726.aspx">like a siren song</a>”. We are drawn to protectionism when we feel that our interests are threatened, and this justifies closing our borders. </p>
<p>However, it may be important to realise that those who are most likely to fall prey to its sound are not the ones that we have had in our sights all along.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jolanda Jetten receives funding from the Australian Research Council for various research projects including a recent Discovery grant examining the relationship between affluence and anti-immigrant attitudes.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Mols previously received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) to conduct research into relationship between affluence and the hardening of attitudes. </span></em></p>How can we explain that wealth is associated with protectionism and support for populist leaders?Jolanda Jetten, Professor of Social Psychology, The University of QueenslandFrank Mols, Lecturer in Political Science, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/658722016-09-27T19:24:48Z2016-09-27T19:24:48ZIreland’s vote on marriage equality holds many lessons – but are any relevant to Australia?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138721/original/image-20160922-11676-5ryd7n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In 2015 Ireland became the first country to introduce marriage equality by way of national referendum.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Cathal McNaughton</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The marriage equality debate has been resolved in a variety of ways across the world. The vast majority of countries to have introduced same-sex marriage (including, for example, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/306000/140423_M_SSC_Act_factsheet__web_version_.pdf">the UK</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gay-marriage-becomes-legal-in-new-zealand-20130417-2i0xz.html">New Zealand</a>) have done so through legislation enacted in parliament. Some, like the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gay-marriage-legal-in-all-50-us-states-thanks-to-supreme-court-ruling-43959">US</a> and <a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2005/19.html">South Africa</a>, have done so on foot of a national court decision.</p>
<p>In 2015, Ireland became the first country to introduce marriage equality <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-becomes-first-country-to-approve-same-sex-marriage-by-popular-vote-1.2223646">by way of national referendum</a>.</p>
<p>Many in Australia look to the use of the referendum in Ireland as an example of how its marriage equality debate might be resolved. Indeed, the government has a bill before parliament to <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-65218">hold a plebiscite on the issue</a> in February 2017. But Ireland and Australia have very different constitutional traditions, and what works well in one country might be very damaging in the other. </p>
<p>Australia is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZaC1kcZZlE">famously cautious</a> about introducing alien plants or animals into its unique ecosystem. In this case, it should be similarly slow to follow a foreign example in deciding which process is best suited to resolving a sensitive political and legal issue.</p>
<h2>The method itself can be controversial</h2>
<p>It is not uncommon for the mode of resolving the marriage equality debate to be a source of controversy in itself.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">US Supreme Court decision</a> in 2015 that legalised same-sex marriage across the country was described by dissenting justice Antonin Scalia as a “judicial putsch” that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… robs the people of … the freedom to govern themselves. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the other end of the democratic spectrum, <a href="http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/in-the-face-of-political-inaction-it-is-up-to-us-to-back-the-rights-of-minority-groups-31214250.html">many commentators</a> in Ireland criticised the use of the referendum as <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-s-referendum-however-inspiring-is-not-a-step-forward-for-gay-rights-1.2225587">excessively majoritarian</a>.</p>
<p>However, these criticisms were somewhat overstated. They fail to take account of the marriage equality debate in each country <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2788811">having followed</a> established patterns and deeply embedded practices in the resolution of a religious-moral controversy. </p>
<p>Such controversies tend to be elevated to the level of constitutional politics in the US and Ireland. The endpoint of constitutional disputes is the US Supreme Court and the Irish referendum respectively. </p>
<p>The obvious comparison is with the debate over abortion. This has culminated in a series of <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html">Supreme Court decisions</a> in the US and a series of referendums in Ireland – the same endpoints as the marriage equality debate.</p>
<p>Ireland has voted twice on divorce and three times on abortion since 1983. Voters are accustomed to these campaigns and have an expectation of being directly consulted on major changes of this nature. The deeply embedded nature of this practice removes some of the sting from the criticism that its marriage equality referendum was unduly majoritarian.</p>
<p>In Australia, the position on religious-moral issues such as divorce and abortion is governed by ordinary legislation. These <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-plebiscite-on-marriage-robert-menzies-didnt-need-it-46547">have not been the subject</a> of referendums or plebiscites. Why should marriage equality be different?</p>
<p>US Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624">once wrote</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>A vote in parliament is still a vote, but the legislative process filters out animus and prejudice by calling on representatives to explain and justify their vote, and affords minorities the opportunity to advance their interests through deliberation, bargaining and coalition formation. </p>
<p>Comparatively speaking, the legislative process is less prone to naked majoritarianism than a referendum is.</p>
<h2>What happened in Ireland?</h2>
<p>In the lead-up to the 2015 referendum, campaigners for marriage equality in Ireland reported a significant incidence of direct personal abuse on the campaign trail. Incidents included having holy water thrown on them, being told they should be “locked up” or “taken to the slaughterhouse”, or that a “Yes” vote would be “the end of humanity”. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138718/original/image-20160922-11671-ilzwzv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Insults flowed in both directions during Ireland’s referendum on same-sex marriage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps inevitably, the insults flowed <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/insults-won-t-help-either-side-win-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1.2194027">in both directions</a>. Opponents were labelled bigots and homophobes. </p>
<p>The parliamentary route removes the need for campaigners on either side to go door-to-door asking for votes and running the gauntlet of abuse.</p>
<p>The broader public nature of a referendum debate places more scrutiny and pressure on minority groups. Opponents of marriage equality in Ireland (as in California and elsewhere) expended considerable resources in portraying same-sex couples as inferior or unsuitable parents. </p>
<p>An LGBT helpline service <a href="http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/same-sex-marriage-vote-sparks-surge-in-calls-to-lgbt-helpline-379400.html">had its busiest year ever</a> in Ireland in 2015. There was a huge spike in demand in the lead-up to polling day from people seeking support:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… to cope with the intensity of having their lives debated in public, or to deal with negative attitudes expressed by family members or friends.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The campaign for marriage equality in Ireland was ultimately successful. And some have pointed out that direct public involvement in the process gave the decision added legitimacy. </p>
<p>While this may be true, this added legitimacy came at a significant cost. This cost was largely avoided in countries such as the UK or New Zealand, where the matter was decided in parliament.</p>
<p>Those jurisdictions do not appear to have experienced problems with the legitimacy of the outcome – because, unlike in Ireland, the referendum was not an important part of their constitutional tradition.</p>
<h2>Tread with caution</h2>
<p>Australia needs to be cautious when considering which lesson to learn from the Irish marriage equality referendum.</p>
<p>First, Ireland’s decision to hold a referendum was more a function of constitutional law than a conscious choice. While some argued the Constitution did not define marriage, there was consensus <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2321595">among the political and legal establishment</a> that a constitutional amendment was necessary to introduce marriage equality. This is clearly not the case in Australia.</p>
<p>Second, Australia has a much more limited tradition than Ireland of referendums in general, and of the plebiscite in particular. Just one plebiscite – on a national song – has been held since 1917.</p>
<p>Most significantly, almost all national referendums in Australia have focused on issues concerning governance rather than on individual rights.</p>
<p>This is not to say Australians are not capable of holding a fair and robust debate. It is simply to observe that where moral controversies are not ordinarily resolved by a direct vote of the people, the argument that minority rights should not depend on the outcome of such a vote becomes much more compelling.</p>
<p>In the absence of a deeply embedded practice of settling disputes by plebiscite, the costs that would accrue to the LGBT community are difficult to justify on principled grounds. These costs could largely be avoided by resolving the matter in parliament.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Conor will be online for an Author Q&A between 6 and 7pm AEST on Wednesday 28 September, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65872/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Conor O'Mahony was a member of the Yes Equality campaign during the marriage referendum in Ireland.</span></em></p>Many in Australia look to the use of the referendum in Ireland as an example of how its marriage equality debate might be resolved. But what worked well in Ireland might be very damaging in Australia.Conor O'Mahony, Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, University College CorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635222016-08-24T20:27:20Z2016-08-24T20:27:20ZAustralia should look overseas for ideas to increase its number of women MPs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135259/original/image-20160824-30249-1v0r4b5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most of Australia’s women federal MPs sit on the opposition benches of parliament.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia continues its slide in the international league table for representation of women in national parliaments. In 1999, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) ranked Australia 15th in the world. By June 2016, before the federal election, Australia <a href="http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm">had slipped to 56th place</a>.</p>
<p>Cathy O’Toole’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-31/election-2016-labor-wins-herbert-after-recount/7675898">narrow win in Herbert</a> helped boost the proportion of women in the House of Representatives by a small margin, from 26.7% to 28.7%. This will lift Australia a few places in the international rankings. However, most of these women are on the opposition benches.</p>
<p>The proportion of women among Coalition MPs fell to 17% after the 2016 election. This is the lowest point since 1993. The gap between rhetoric and reality is palpable: the federal Liberal Party <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-party-report-aimed-at-getting-more-women-in-high-office-20151224-gluvt9.html">has adopted</a> an “aspirational” target of 50% women MPs by 2025.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134578/original/image-20160818-12298-acy263.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite making international commitments to achieve gender balance in public decision-making, Australia is lagging behind other countries in adopting practical measures. Admittedly, international donors have offered incentives to some countries to improve.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, <a href="http://www.idea.int/publications/atlas-of-electoral-gender-quotas/upload/Atlas-on-Electoral-Gender-Quotas_3.pdf">118 countries</a> now have some form of electoral quota to ensure greater female participation in public decision-making.</p>
<h2>Are quotas the answer?</h2>
<p>Historically, women party members mobilised to achieve changes to party rules, particularly in parties on the left of the political spectrum. </p>
<p>Scandinavian countries were the first to adopt party quotas. These became the norm among parties belonging to the Socialist International, such as the ALP.</p>
<p>Particularly in electoral systems based on proportional representation, a process of “contagion” may lead to rival parties adopting party quotas to remain competitive. While this was important in countries such as Sweden and Germany, research <a href="http://www.aecpa.es/uploads/files/modules/congress/11/papers/636.pdf">has shown</a> that contagion in other countries is low. This is certainly the case <a href="http://www.apo.org.au/node/57011>">in Australia</a>, where the Coalition parties have shunned the use of party quotas despite the existence of quotas in their organisational structures.</p>
<p>Today, legislated gender quotas across party divides are increasingly common. More than 60 countries have introduced statutory quotas since Argentina led the way in 1991. These include a significant number of European Union countries, including France, Belgium, Spain and – most recently – Ireland.</p>
<p>In 2012, the IPU <a href="http://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/WIP2012e.pdf">found</a> legislated quotas were more effective than party quotas in increasing women’s parliamentary representation. In the absence of quotas, the IPU found women held only half as many seats.</p>
<p>To be effective, there must be a good fit between the quota and the electoral system, as well as placement mandates relating to party lists (for example, “zipping” – where every other candidate on the list <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ElectoralQuotas">must be a woman</a>) and sanctions for non-compliance. Sanctions may include rejection of the party list or loss of election funding, as in France and Ireland.</p>
<p>Reformers have long been concerned about the impact of electoral systems on the legislative representation of women and minorities. <a href="http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/upload/3._Enhancing_Women's_Political_Participation.pdf">Global research</a> has confirmed more women are elected to parliament under proportional representation than under single-member electorate systems.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons for this. Proportional representation:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>enables parties to construct a balanced ticket that appeals to different sections of the community and appeases different sections of the party;</p></li>
<li><p>facilitates the representation of minor parties, which may have less inherited gender bias than long-established major parties; and</p></li>
<li><p>is a better fit for the introduction of quotas than single-member electorate systems, where they may be implemented at the expense of local party democracy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Internationally, the effect of PR in improving women’s political representation was an <a href="https://campaignformmp.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/representing-women-gilling-and-grey-2010.pdf">important part of the argument</a> for introducing mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral systems in New Zealand and Scotland.</p>
<p>In addition to electoral reform and/or the use of quotas, there are other means to boost women’s parliamentary representation. Increasingly, reformers are looking at regulation of political financing and how this can be leveraged to promote gender equality.</p>
<p>For example, public funding of parties may include fiscal incentives to promote gender equality within the party organisation. In Finland, 12% of parliamentary parties’ annual subsidies <a href="http://mlkrook.org/pdf/ps_krook_norris_2014.pdf">must be used</a> to fund their women’s wings. </p>
<p>Elsewhere, for example in Georgia, Bolivia and Croatia, <a href="http://mlkrook.org/pdf/ps_krook_norris_2014.pdf">rewards are provided</a> within party funding systems where a certain proportion of women candidates are nominated or elected. Both the <a href="http://www.idea.int/publications/funding-of-political-parties-and-election-campaigns/upload/foppec_p9.pdf">International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance</a> and the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/gov/2015-oecd-recommendation-of-the-council-on-gender-equality-in-public-life-9789264252820-en.htm">OECD</a> recommend public funding of political parties be conditional on gender ratios. </p>
<p>Apart from earmarked or conditional party funding, the regulation of private campaign money can also be important. There is a gender gap in campaign finance, with women usually having less access to private campaign money. Caps on political donations and campaign expenditure can thereby <a href="http://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/political_finance_and_gender_equality.pdf">help to promote</a> gender equality, as well as a level playing field. </p>
<p>Internationally, many different paths are being pursued to promote gender equality in public decision-making. Australian parties should move beyond “aspirational targets” to adopt some of the practical measures proven effective elsewhere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63522/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marian Sawer is affiliated with the Women's Electoral Lobby.</span></em></p>Australia is lagging behind other countries in adopting practical measures to achieve gender balance in public decision-making.Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613752016-06-22T03:52:39Z2016-06-22T03:52:39ZHow is the UK’s Brexit referendum different from Australian referendums?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127463/original/image-20160621-16048-1s7p45h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thursday’s vote will only be the third-ever UK-wide referendum.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Toby Melville</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thursday’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">referendum</a> on whether the United Kingdom remains in or leaves the European Union may well take the country into uncharted political and constitutional territory. How will the Brexit referendum work? And what distinguishes it from referendums that have been held in Australia?</p>
<h2>A constitutional rarity</h2>
<p>Referendums are rare in the UK. While Australians have voted in <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm">nationwide referendums</a> on 44 proposals to amend the Australian Constitution since 1901, Thursday’s vote will only be the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/">third-ever</a> UK-wide referendum.</p>
<p>Unlike Australia, there is no constitutional requirement in the UK to hold referendums on particular topics or in particular circumstances – and there is no <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/">codified constitution</a> to amend. There has even been scepticism about whether referendums are compatible with Britain’s system of parliamentary democracy or are really <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21673504-referendum-results-are-notoriously-unpredictable-herding-cats">“a device of dictators and demagogues”</a>.</p>
<p>And so the EU referendum was triggered not by a constitutional requirement, but because David Cameron’s Conservative Party <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">promised</a> in 2015 to give voters “a say over whether we should stay”. The promise was put into effect in the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents">European Union Referendum Act</a>.</p>
<p>The independent Electoral Commission <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-question-assessment">set</a> the question as: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And so <a href="http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/designation-of-lead-campaigners-for-the-eu-referendum">the two competing sides</a> are referred to as “Remain” and “Leave”.</p>
<p>At an Australian constitutional referendum, it is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rpa1984353/s45.html">compulsory</a> to vote. For the Brexit referendum, voting is voluntary. This means that both official campaigns have been devoting considerable effort to ensuring their supporters <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/05/21/assessing-impact-turnout-eu-referendum/">show up to vote</a>. </p>
<p>At present, if <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/turnout-percentage">bookmakers</a> are to be believed, the expectation is turnout will be somewhere around 70% – at the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results">2015 election</a> it was 66%.</p>
<h2>But what would Leave look like?</h2>
<p>When Australia holds a constitutional referendum, voters are able to know precisely what they are voting on. Under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html">Section 128</a> of the Constitution, a detailed amendment bill needs to have gone through the parliament before a referendum can even be held. </p>
<p>In the 1999 referendum on an Australian republic, for example, <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill/caor1999503/">the full proposal </a>was available to be scrutinised and reviewed by voters beforehand – right down to exactly how the Australian president would be chosen. </p>
<p>This can have disadvantages, not least for those proposing the change: the proposal gives a hostage to fortune. But it has a tremendous advantage for voters, who can know what they will get if they vote “Yes”. And when an Australian referendum passes, the governor-general <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html">assents to</a> the proposal to become part of the Constitution.</p>
<p>British voters are not in this position.</p>
<p>Remarkably, there is no official proposal on what the UK or the EU will look like after a vote to “Leave”. Voters are not being asked about a detailed, agreed, plan. Instead, a Leave vote will trigger the possibility of years of EU-UK divorce negotiations under the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf">Treaty on European Union</a> to figure out all the details. </p>
<p>On what conditions would the UK trade with EU member states after a Leave vote? What would be done with the EU citizens living in the UK and the UK citizens living in the EU? How would the UK go about negotiating new trade deals with non-EU countries? Which EU laws would be retained?</p>
<p>These questions are not unanswerable. But, for now, they are unanswered.</p>
<p>This means, as well as having an in-principle argument about whether or not Britain should leave the EU, Britain is having a parallel argument about what it would practically involve if it left the EU. </p>
<p>This has led to a confusing campaign characterised by uncertainty. <a href="http://www.strongerin.co.uk/">Remain</a> has argued that the unanswered questions can only be resolved in complex – potentially disastrous – ways. <a href="http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave">Leave</a> has argued these questions will be answered with straightforward advantageous solutions. But no-one knows for sure, and the arguments take place side-by-side, to the disadvantage of British voters.</p>
<h2>Divided we fall?</h2>
<p>In Australia, it is notoriously difficult for a referendum proposal to be approved by the voters: only <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/Referendums_Overview.htm">eight of 44 proposals</a> have received a “Yes” vote. </p>
<p>In part, this difficulty is due to the “double majority” referendum <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s128.html">requirement</a>: a proposal must receive not only a majority of voters nationwide, but also a majority of voters in a majority of the six Australian states.</p>
<p>The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no special majority requirement for the Brexit referendum. This means a big “Leave” vote in England could be sufficient to ensure a “Leave” result – even if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote to “Remain”.</p>
<p>But while there is no special majority requirement, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/nicola-sturgeon-orders-officials-to-draw-up-plans-for-second-ind/">has made it clear</a> that an overall “Leave” result may cause her pro-EU government to pursue a new referendum on Scottish independence from the UK. An English-led decision to take the UK out of Europe could thus lead to a renewed Scottish push to take Scotland out of the UK.</p>
<p>A decision to Leave could also have ramifications for Northern Ireland. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/04/bertie-ahern-uk-reimpose-irish-border-after-brexit-eu-northern-ireland">Discussion</a> is already underway about a post-Brexit need to reinstate border controls at the UK’s only land border, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/30dabf70-2f1c-11e6-bf8d-26294ad519fc.html">Others worry</a> Brexit could threaten the basis of the Northern Ireland peace process.</p>
<p>As a matter of raw politics, it seems plain that David Cameron <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-david-cameron-brexit-will-he-resign-or-stay-prime-minister-a7090071.html">would not last very long</a> as prime minister in the event of a Leave vote. The referendum campaign’s nature and tone may have hastened his <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32022484">retirement as prime minister</a> even if there is a Remain vote.</p>
<p>The Brexit referendum has created uncertainty in Britain and beyond. That uncertainty may well continue even once the results are known.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61375/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Goss does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How will the Brexit referendum work? And what distinguishes it from referendums that have been held in Australia?Ryan Goss, Senior Lecturer in Law, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/603182016-06-06T20:07:16Z2016-06-06T20:07:16ZMalcolm or Bill: who would you invite to your barbecue?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124747/original/image-20160601-1425-1bw0zzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are complex, enigmatic figures.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If the proliferation of open and free elections is the key factor contributing to the strength of a democracy, then Australia is well served.</p>
<p>Three-year terms for federal MPs, state elections every four years or so, and council elections sometimes sneaking in rarely leaves a parents and citizens association far from having a fundraising cake stall to help their school and service the needs of those lining up to do their democratic duty.</p>
<p>The very abundance of Australian elections can build indifference. And given compulsory voting means citizens are compelled to take part, listening to “the pollies” and going to vote are part of our national routine.</p>
<p>Campaigns can be viewed and assessed by looking at their content (what policies each of the parties is committed to) or the process (how each party is looking to present those policies to garner political support). Although previously involved in campaigns both here and in the UK, I have never been too interested in the technical necessities of how to run them and elicit public support.</p>
<p>The campaign isn’t really the time when a policy “wonk” is required. That work should have been done.</p>
<p>But the skills of undertaking a coherent campaign are vital in a democracy. A party can have the most brilliantly informed and farsighted policies, but if the protagonists cannot communicate them effectively to the electorate, they will be overlooked. </p>
<p>With our increasingly consumerist model of politics, the danger is that what politicians believe the electorate wants to hear comes to guide policy.</p>
<h2>Lessons from 2005</h2>
<p>In 2005, I worked on the British general election campaign for the Labour leader and prime minister, Tony Blair. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=794&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=794&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=794&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=998&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=998&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124874/original/image-20160602-1964-1g39tpr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=998&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Every intervention in Tony Blair’s 2005 election campaign was consistent with an overall theme.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The campaign commenced with a briefing at Downing Street from the two key New Labour strategists – Alastair Campbell and the late Philip Gould. The two-hour meeting covered how the campaign would be structured, how they wanted to position Labour and the prime minister on a series of major policy challenges, and what everyone’s job would be over the coming weeks.</p>
<p>I was given the task of ensuring key constituencies understood <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/sep/15/greenpolitics.uk">Blair’s perspective on climate change</a> and how his commitment to emissions reduction would be taken forward domestically, in Europe and internationally in his third term. </p>
<p>I wasn’t part of the core team of advisers, but I was in a position to observe and work with those who were.</p>
<p>Key to the strategy was the notion that Blair and Labour had to “own” the future. Initially I thought it a pompous, self-aggrandising and meaningless theme, presented with the three words:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/feb/04/uk.advertising">Forward, not back</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>But, as applied across social, economic, environmental and international policy over the coming weeks, the strategy started to make sense. It was not that the government hubristically wanted people to think it had the answers to all future challenges. It was that, rather than defending existing interests, Labour’s policies and approaches were all focused on tackling future problems through a creative and open approach to policy. </p>
<p>The theme built up slowly. The election came at the end of a campaign when the Tory opposition had become increasingly shrill, negative and irrelevant. The campaign was structured not as an amalgam of single policy announcements but a process whereby every intervention was consistent with an overall theme.</p>
<h2>What for Australia’s 2016 campaign?</h2>
<p>It is less overt, but “owning the future” is very much part of the campaign narrative being adopted by both main Australian parties in the 2016 race. The Coalition seeks to emphasise its <a href="https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/737842968376135681">“plan” for the economy</a>; Labor seeks to do the same for <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4456938.htm">health and education</a>.</p>
<p>With rehearsed phrases <a href="https://theconversation.com/both-leaders-failed-to-engage-properly-with-the-occasion-or-the-public-60161">dominating the first leaders’ debate</a>, it would be easy to see both the current and potential prime minister as a one-dimensional “hollow man” driven by polling and research. Yet both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are complex, enigmatic figures.</p>
<p>Only Bob Hawke, as a previous leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, came to national politics with a political personality as known as Turnbull. Turnbull has been in the public eye for more than 30 years. </p>
<p>It is clear to all that Turnbull has had to shed his long-held convictions on same-sex marriage, pricing carbon emissions and Australia becoming a republic in order for the Liberal Party to make him its leader.</p>
<p>So, despite having been on the stage for so long, it is unclear quite what Turnbull the prime minister stands for. Will the “real” Turnbull emerge after an election victory? Or will he forever be “Tony-Abbott-lite”, parroting phrases like <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/budget-2016-forget-jobs-and-growth-this-was-political-20160502-gojr0h.html">“jobs and growth”</a> and believing in the motherhood of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-07/pm-malcolm-turnbull-unveils-$1-billion-innovation-program/7006952">“innovation”</a>?</p>
<p>As is the way for opposition leaders, Shorten is less well known. And yet from his exposure as Australian Workers Union national secretary during the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/were-ready-bill-shorten-manoftheworkers-returns-ready-to-serve-20160508-gopcqp.html">Beaconsfield mine collapse</a>, his part in the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/bill-shorten-faces-the-ghosts-of-the-killing-season--the-ruddgillard-downfall-20150605-ghhmzs.html">ousting of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard</a>, and his role in <a href="http://www.billshorten.com.au/speech_to_alp_national_conference_why_labor_must_introduce_an_ndis">marshalling the introduction</a> of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Shorten has been on the political stage for more than ten years. </p>
<p>And, as with Turnbull, he has long been feted as a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1637536.htm">future prime minister</a>.</p>
<p>What’s come across from Shorten in this campaign so far is his apparent confidence. He may not have the intellect of Gough Whitlam or Paul Keating, or the charisma of Hawke. But unlike the likes of Mark Latham or Kevin Rudd, he does manage to communicate a certain normality and calm. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1004&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1004&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124877/original/image-20160602-1923-16hpr82.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1004&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some people end up voting on the basis of who they would rather share a barbecue with.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And, rather like a punching bag on a rope, no matter how hard the punch, Shorten keeps coming back. He has endured and returned stronger and more eager after each setback: <a href="https://theconversation.com/shorten-outs-himself-as-labor-figure-in-rape-investigation-30781">historical rape accusations</a>, a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-bruised-but-trade-unions-royal-commission-yet-to-reveal-a-smoking-gun-20150708-gi7twt.html">challenging appearance</a> at the trade union royal commission, or an <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/newspoll-shows-bill-shortens-popularity-at-a-record-low-as-malcolm-turnbull-surges-ahead/news-story/f3f003641977791c4f684ec8b6d7f723">approval rating in free-fall</a> six months ago.</p>
<p>Putting aside the significant policy differences between the parties, there is theory that Australians end up voting on the basis of who they dislike less or would rather share a garden barbecue with. </p>
<p>In the 1996 election, many Australians would have been unsure of an afternoon with Paul Keating talking in acronyms on macroeconomic theory or the merits of various antique French clocks. Better to spend the time with John Howard: more akin to a non-threatening suburban bank manager unlikely to cause too much offence.</p>
<p>There is a long way to go in this campaign. With compulsory voting and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/reachtel-moves-to-labor-essential-to-coalition-59974">polls so close</a>, any sign of momentum can be significant. But in the end, as the protagonists stumble to July 2, it might just be which leader the electorate believes is the more personable, normal and authentic barbecue guest that makes the difference.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Rowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A party can have the most brilliantly informed and farsighted policies. But if the protagonists cannot communicate these effectively to the electorate, they will be overlooked.Nick Rowley, Adjunct Professor, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595972016-06-01T20:16:28Z2016-06-01T20:16:28ZAustralia trails way behind other nations in regulating political donations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124706/original/image-20160601-1943-10gwwm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The UK has limits on expenditure by political parties and third parties, and doesn’t allow paid advertising in electronic media at all.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Money makes the world of politics go around and, as recent scandals afflicting both major political parties have shown, keeping it clean isn’t easy. Our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/political-finance-in-australia">series on Australia’s system of political finance</a> examines its regulation, operation and possible reforms.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Australia was once a pioneer in developing mechanisms for electoral integrity. We gave the world the secret ballot, for instance, as well as non-partisan electoral administrators and non-partisan processes for electoral redistribution. But our political finance regulation now falls way behind international standards.</p>
<p>To take just one issue, <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/bans-and-limits-on-private-income.cfm">Australia is not one</a> of the 114 out of 180 countries that ban donations to political parties from foreign interests. Transparency can be impossible to achieve when donations come from other countries.</p>
<p>The federal government introduced public funding for political parties in 1983, to reduce reliance on private donations. But corporate donations have continued to grow – reaching <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/">A$202 million in 2013–14</a>. The only federal restriction on private money in politics is the <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/">requirement to disclose donations</a> of more than A$13,200. But this information doesn’t become public until well after the relevant electoral event. </p>
<p>Unlike similar democracies, Australia limits neither political donations nor campaign expenditure by political parties at the federal level. But states and territories have <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-our-political-donations-system-work-and-is-it-any-good-60159">different rules</a>.</p>
<h2>Other jurisdictions</h2>
<p>Canada has extensive regulation, banning corporate and union donations, imposing caps on individual donations and limits on candidate, party and third-party expenditure – that is, expenditure by groups other than candidates or political parties during an election campaign. </p>
<p>New Zealand also limits expenditure by parties and third parties. Its electoral commission is responsible for party broadcasting allocation (free time and money for paid advertising).</p>
<p>The United Kingdom has limits on expenditure by political parties and third parties. Paid advertising in electronic media isn’t allowed at all.</p>
<p>In 2008, the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080312/animal-2.htm">House of Lords upheld the prohibition</a>. It argued the ban was necessary to maintain a level playing field and prevent “well-endowed interests” from using “the power of the purse to give enhanced prominence to their views”.</p>
<p>In Australia, the cost of television advertising and associated market research has driven political parties to chase ever-greater donations. Both political donations and the negative advertising these buy increase distrust in politicians and political parties.</p>
<h2>Regulating for democracy</h2>
<p>The aim of political finance regulation is twofold: to ensure the integrity of elections and to promote a level playing field for electoral competition. Both aims are equally important. </p>
<p>To safeguard integrity, we need transparency and other measures so that those with vested interests in government contracts or regulation cannot buy access and influence.</p>
<p>The second reason for regulating political donations is to promote political equality, a defining feature of democratic citizenship. </p>
<p>Parties without wealthy backers should not have their message drowned out by those that do. And corporate donors should not be able to buy political access far in excess of what other citizens enjoy. </p>
<p>A third reason for regulating donations is to ensure those elected to be political representatives don’t instead spend their time chasing donations.</p>
<p>But despite repeated calls for political donations reform, progress at the federal level has been stalled since then senator John Faulkner’s <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/voting/2008/08-12-01_electoral-reform-green-paper.pdf">2008 Electoral Reform Green Paper</a>. </p>
<h2>States, territories and reforms</h2>
<p>There’s been more movement at the state and territory level. New South Wales now has the most comprehensive regulations. These include: donation caps; source restrictions (no donations from property developers, for instance, or gambling, tobacco or liquor industries); and expenditure limits for parties and third parties. </p>
<p>The NSW government even appointed an expert panel to investigate the possibility of a total ban on political donations, and their replacement by full public funding of parties, in 2015.</p>
<p>The Australian Capital Territory has expenditure limits. The ACT also requires continuous disclosure for donations more than A$1,000. </p>
<p>In South Australia, expenditure limits are a condition of public funding. The state also imposes a A$500 cap on “cash for access” events.</p>
<p>But this patchwork of regulation creates many loopholes. NSW Premier Mike Baird has tried to get a national system of political donation law onto the COAG agenda – so far without success. </p>
<p>In the past, many believed any reform of Australia’s political donations regime wouldn’t survive a challenge because the High Court has found that the Constitution implies freedom of political communication. All this changed with the <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2015/HCA/34">2015 McCloy decision</a>. </p>
<p>In this case, brought by a property developer, the High Court decided that “guaranteeing the ability of a few to make large political donations in order to secure access to those in power” was antithetical to the underlying constitutional principle of political equality. Political freedom needed to be balanced by “equality of opportunity to participate in the exercise of political sovereignty”.</p>
<p>This was a very welcome recognition that political equality is central to representative democracy. And it should give heart to all electoral reformers.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Catch up on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/political-finance-in-australia">other articles in the series</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59597/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marian Sawer has received funding from the Australian Research Council for the Democratic Audit of Australia and from the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia for her current project with Anika Gauja on party regulation.</span></em></p>Unlike similar democracies, Australia neither limits political donations nor campaign expenditure by political parties at the federal level.Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565132016-04-25T20:15:05Z2016-04-25T20:15:05ZIdeas for Australia: Can our federalism feuds be fixed with a look to overseas?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117802/original/image-20160407-9990-2zokfa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A dysfunctional unilateralism characterises intergovernmental relations in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The Conversation has asked 20 academics to examine the big ideas facing Australia for the 2016 federal election and beyond. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/ideas-for-australia">20-piece series</a> will examine, among others, the state of democracy, health, education, environment, equality, freedom of speech, federation and economic reform.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s recent radical plan to return a limited income-tax power to Australia’s states – which he <a href="http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/doorstop-penrith">trumpeted as</a> “the most fundamental reform to the federation in generations” – <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbulls-state-based-income-tax-idea-is-dead-2016-4">died as an idea</a> within a week.</p>
<p>At one level, this was just another example of thought-bubble politics, policy on the run, pre-election positioning. At a deeper level, it was indicative of much of what is wrong in Australia’s federation. A dysfunctional unilateralism characterises intergovernmental relations.</p>
<h2>What’s the problem?</h2>
<p>Australia’s Constitution created two levels of government that were intended, in the largest part, to function independently of one another. It is therefore understandable that no mechanism was included for intergovernmental relations. </p>
<p>The Senate was envisaged as providing some sort of representation for the states in national decision-making. However, being popularly elected rather than appointed by the state governments, it was never going to function in that way – and never has.</p>
<p>This was not a real problem until the Commonwealth <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/governing-australia/uniform-tax-case-1942.html">seized control</a> of the main tax sources in 1942 and then went on to use its surplus revenue to expand further and further into areas of state jurisdiction. </p>
<p>The resulting extreme <a href="https://theconversation.com/renewing-federalism-what-are-the-solutions-to-vertical-fiscal-imbalance-31422">vertical fiscal imbalance</a> (VFI) is a system where, far from operating autonomously, the two levels of government are deeply entangled. In particular, the Commonwealth tends to use its fiscal power to lay down the rules in various policy areas. Yet it still relies on the states for the actual implementation and administration of policies and programs, and the delivery of public services. </p>
<p>If there’s any justification for accusing the states of treating the Commonwealth <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/the-pros-and-cons-of-withdrawing-federal-funding-from-state-schools/news-story/91cb58b68e4a158e0b0e55bfb3da9289">like an ATM</a>, this is it.</p>
<p>In response to this entanglement, the Commonwealth and the states agreed in the early 1990s to formalise their working relationship by establishing the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). </p>
<p>COAG, however, is only a meeting. It is perhaps not <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/254050.html">“nasty, brutish and short”</a>, but it is certainly short, occasional and Commonwealth-dominated.</p>
<p>A painful lack of cohesion and co-operation among the states has greatly facilitated Commonwealth unilateralism. If the states cannot agree to a common position on fixing vertical fiscal imbalance, then there is no surprise the Commonwealth continues to provide no realistic solution.</p>
<p>Recognising this problem, the states came together in 2005 to create their own collegial body: the <a href="http://www.caf.gov.au/">Council for the Australian Federation</a>. For a brief moment it functioned well. However, the collective spirit soon waned and it lost momentum and relevance.</p>
<h2>Can we learn from overseas?</h2>
<p>Could things work better? Perhaps. The reality, though, is that intergovernmental relations are not the strong point of federal systems generally.</p>
<p>Germany is the most obvious exception. Its <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrat_of_Germany">Bundesrat</a>, or Federal Council, really is a states’ house since it is made up of emissaries from the state governments. As a consequence, the federal government must negotiate in good faith with the states since they have veto power over any federal legislation that concerns them. </p>
<p>This is reinforced by a principle of constitutional interpretation that requires Germany’s governments to be faithful to federalism’s principles. Not surprisingly, Germany has solved the fiscal problem besetting Australian federalism by establishing a system of <a href="http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/vwl/corneo/Forschung/Fiscal-Federalism-and-Tax-Administration.pdf">joint taxation</a>. Constitutionally defined shares of the main taxes go to the respective levels of government.</p>
<p>In Switzerland, intergovernmental relations also function reasonably well. This is not because of similar institutional advantages to those of Germany, but because the states co-operate and co-ordinate much better between themselves.</p>
<p>In some areas this means jointly solving problems in a way that obviates the need for central government intervention. In others, this means presenting a united front to the central government.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, Germany and Switzerland are the two federations where the states have taken steps to ensure strong representation in the capital. Each of the German states has its mission or representative office in Berlin. Some could be mistaken for foreign embassies. </p>
<p>Each of the Swiss states is represented in the national capital via the Conference of Cantonal Governments’ House of the Cantons.</p>
<p>No such established framework of co-operative relations exists in Canada. But its provinces tend to take a stronger position in relation to the federal government, led in particular by Quebec and Alberta. </p>
<p>The provinces also have a reasonably successful intergovernmental body of their own, the <a href="http://canadaspremiers.ca/en/">Council of the Federation</a>. It greatly helps the situation in Canada that the federal government was only able to co-opt the income tax system for the duration of the second world war. It was not able to take over the tax system permanently. </p>
<p>Additionally, the provinces are free to levy their own sales taxes. Over the years a system of tax-base sharing has evolved to minimise administrative complexities while providing each province with substantial own-source revenues and scope to differentiate itself from others.</p>
<p>There is much in these overseas practices that would be of benefit to Australian federalism. Better outcomes would result from better processes. The states wouldn’t be in the position of chronic disadvantage where they are regularly scorned for refusing to accept offers that are neither advantageous nor workable, or even necessarily offered in good faith. </p>
<p>The prerequisite for such reforms is much more determined and effective collective action by the states.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can read other articles in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/ideas-for-australia">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Fenna receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The reality is that intergovernmental relations are not the strong point of federal systems generally. But some do it better than others.Alan Fenna, Professor of Politics, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/556372016-03-09T19:01:46Z2016-03-09T19:01:46ZDonald trumping all in the Republican race is only possible thanks to an undemocratic system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113964/original/image-20160306-4575-1grsj9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump is masterfully exploiting America's system of choosing its presidential candidates.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Kevin Kolczynski</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump continued his winning form in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0">Republican presidential primaries</a> on Wednesday. He won primaries in Mississippi and Michigan, and the Hawaii caucus, to go with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-clinton-dominate-super-tuesday-55651">swag of states</a> he won on Super Tuesday.</p>
<p>Many people <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/26/the-real-reason-donald-trump-is-winning-no-one-thought-it-was-possible/">are surprised</a> and question how Trump’s seemingly rapid rise is possible. But it has been in the making for almost half a century. And it provides people around the world with a great opportunity to understand how not to destroy their political system.</p>
<p>The problem is not so much Trump; it is the primary system he is masterfully exploiting. Disguised in the public eye as the ultimate democratic institution, the primaries actually use the excuse of democracy to impose minority decisions, nullify political parties and ultimately destroy democracy and accountability as we know them.</p>
<h2>How is it possible?</h2>
<p>The Republican Party can stop Trump at any time – but it probably won’t. </p>
<p>State party delegates at a national convention, held between July and August of an election year, officially choose the party’s nominee. According to <a href="https://www.gop.com/the-official-guide-to-the-2016-republican-nominating-process/">complicated rules</a>, some of these delegates are pledged to vote for a candidate, while others are unpledged and can vote for whomever they want. </p>
<p>Even most pledged delegates, however, are committed to a candidate only during the first ballot. So, <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-super-tuesday-can-republicans-still-take-the-nomination-away-from-trump/">especially</a> if Trump does not secure an absolute majority of delegates (50% plus one) before the convention, anyone could get the nomination. </p>
<p>Having the party step in to bring order in its own house, however, would be seen as anti-democratic. The last time a party blatantly ignored the people’s will at a convention was when the Democrats nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey during the <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1968-democratic-convention-931079/?no-ist=&page=2">1968 convention</a>.</p>
<p>The Republican establishment makes no secret of their <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0">loathing of Trump</a>. Yet the fear of being dubbed anti-democratic is even stronger than the fear of having Trump <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-independent-bid-220170">spoil the election</a> as a third-party candidate. </p>
<p>Ultimately, both fears will probably stop the party establishment taking any real action. The irony is that the actual decision on the nominee is hardly an ode to democracy.</p>
<h2>Imposing bad, minority decisions</h2>
<p>Turnout in American elections is <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/06/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/">extremely low</a>; the 2012 presidential election attracted 53.6% of the voting-age population to the polls. Turnout in primary elections is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0">even lower</a> – generally between 10% and 25% of the population of each state.</p>
<p>For example, about 5% of the total population of South Carolina voted for Trump in its primary and delivered him all 50 delegates from that state. Then, at the general election, people are stuck with the “democratic” choice of a very influential 5% minority.</p>
<p>The worst part is that, within this system, bad candidates are the norm – not the exception. Since 1972, the Republican Party has always been the party of the establishment. It has an almost set-in-stone informal order of who is next in line for the nomination. Gerald Ford <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976">in 1976</a>, Bob Dole <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1996">in 1996</a>, John McCain <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008">in 2008</a> and Mitt Romney <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012">in 2012</a> were all able to secure the nomination even though their appeal to even just Republican voters was debatable. </p>
<p>The Democratic Party, however, has been full of unconventional candidates hijacking its presidential nomination through primary elections. George McGovern <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1972">in 1972</a>, Jimmy Carter <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976">in 1976</a>, and even Bill Clinton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992">in 1992</a> and Barack Obama <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008">in 2008</a> were probably not the party establishment’s first choice when they got the nomination. </p>
<p>The Trump saga is somewhat different. A non-establishment figure has not truly hijacked the Republican nomination before, but it is just the latest chapter of a long story of bad candidates and bitter surprises.</p>
<h2>Nullifying parties</h2>
<p>Americans are convinced that primary elections are the culmination of their great democracy. Many <a href="http://mondediplo.com/blogs/us-primaries-and-the-unintended-consequences-of">around the world</a> naïvely agree with this statement. </p>
<p>Primaries are the ultimate American invention. Arguably, they are the only American invention in the modern democratic process. Unfortunately, they are a terrible invention – they actually destroy the political system. </p>
<p>Primaries destroy political parties when it comes to their most primitive function: structure the vote and <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Modern_Democracies.html?id=2LXUKYifHdEC&redir_esc=y">“bring order out of chaos”</a>. Political parties that are not able to select their own candidates end up having no party discipline, losing control over the agenda and – ultimately – having no input on public policy. </p>
<p>The consequences for public policy are enormous. Every policy proposal must be negotiated individually with single politicians; pork barrelling becomes common practice; and there is a complete disconnect between the executive and legislative branches.</p>
<p>Because most American states use primaries not only to (indirectly) select their presidential candidates, but also to (directly) select both parties’ congressional candidates, the issue is spread to both the executive and legislative branches. This is also why President Obama’s <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487">accomplishments</a> were so small, especially for a president originally elected with party majorities in both chambers of Congress.</p>
<p>In Australia, political parties carry out all the functions American parties are no longer able to execute. They represent an effective link between the executive and legislative branches. Each party has a set of goals and policy preferences that all of its members publicly pursue as a group. If someone is running for the Liberal Party, voters know what they stand for – regardless of how much information they know about the candidate as an individual. </p>
<p>Australian MPs even <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-joe-bullock-quits-citing-labors-support-for-homosexual-marriage-20160301-gn7ugj.html">resign from parliament</a> to avoid voting against the party line. This would never happen in the US Congress, where party members regularly vote against their own party. </p>
<p>American parties could certainly use a large dose of Australian party discipline and control over their own candidates. Australia does not need anyone trumping its political parties.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rodrigo Praino does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Primaries are the ultimate American invention. Unfortunately, they are a terrible invention – they actually destroy the political system.Rodrigo Praino, Lecturer, School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458332015-08-13T01:06:14Z2015-08-13T01:06:14ZAustralia is lagging behind the world’s best on judicial appointments reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91123/original/image-20150807-4419-1vrgcxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia’s method of appointing judges to its highest courts is opaque and informal.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Retired judge Kenneth Hayne recently told a conference audience that he had no warning of his appointment to the High Court in 1997. The federal attorney-general simply telephoned one afternoon to offer him the position, confirmed the appointment half an hour later, and it was publicly announced 20 minutes after that.</p>
<p>Sometimes the process has been different – but it is typically mysterious. Apart from a <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hcoaa1979233/s6.html">statutory need</a> to “consult” their state counterparts for High Court appointments, the attorney-general has unlimited discretion in selecting who joins the federal judiciary.</p>
<p>Occasionally, the attorney-general’s choice may be rolled by cabinet’s preference for another candidate. The last occasion on which we know that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/here-comes-the-judge--but-which-one-will-it-be/2008/07/24/1216492637213.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1">this occurred</a> was the Howard government’s appointment of Ian Callinan, QC, instead of Attorney-General Daryl Williams’ recommendation of John von Doussa, QC, to the High Court in 1998.</p>
<p>Either way, the public justification is invariably that the individual has been selected on “merit” alone. But that rarely makes clear why one talented and brilliant lawyer is appointed over others at any particular time.</p>
<p>Just how much longer can Australia’s method of appointing judges remain so opaque and informal?</p>
<h2>Restoring public confidence</h2>
<p>Public confidence in the courts as independent from the political arms of government is vital in a society that respects the rule of law. How persons are selected for appointment to the bench is an important way in which that confidence may be affected. </p>
<p>It is no criticism of Australia’s judiciary to say that it would be preferable, both for them and the public, if they took office after a more transparent process.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/history-of-unchecked-executive-haunts-queensland-in-judge-fight-28029">crisis</a> into which the Queensland legal system was plunged by the appointment of Tim Carmody as chief justice highlights the deficiencies of the old method of executive discretion. While that controversy appears to have been resolved with Carmody’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-01/queenslands-chief-justice-tim-carmody-resigns/6587422">resignation</a> in June, the lesson is that a more independent and considered process has a lot to recommend it.</p>
<p>Generally, all states and territories have reformed their judicial appointments practices in some way over recent years. The Carmody affair perhaps reflects that Queensland has hardly been in the vanguard.</p>
<p>But, at the Commonwealth level, things are actually in reverse. Attorney-General George Brandis <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_37/slr37_2/SLRv37n2HandsleyLynch.pdf">dismantled</a> reforms initiated in 2008 by the previous Labor government. He has never explained why selection criteria, advertising judicial vacancies and the use of advisory panels to assess potential candidates had to go.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth’s method of appointing persons to the federal judiciary is now seriously behind domestic and international trends. In April, the Judicial Conference of Australia released a <a href="http://www.jca.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/P17_02_42-RESEARCH-PAPER-final.pdf">comparison of all Australian jurisdictions</a>. Confronted with an almost total dearth of information to report about current Commonwealth practice, the JCA resorted to describing the abandoned Labor system.</p>
<p>At the same time, it detailed various approaches of other Australian governments. Most have publicly available criteria identifying the qualities that make up “merit”. Many advertise vacancies and use advisory or selection panels, at least for lower courts. Some even interview prospective judges.</p>
<h2>What can Australian learn from overseas?</h2>
<p>The JCA report was essentially descriptive. But the Bingham Rule of Law Centre’s <a href="http://www.biicl.org/documents/689_bingham_centre_compendium.pdf">vast survey</a> of practice across the Commonwealth group of nations goes much further. Published in July, the report identifies “best practice” against a set of principles agreed upon by law ministers and endorsed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2003.</p>
<p>Those principles provide that judicial appointments should be made:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… on the basis of clearly defined criteria and by a publicly declared process.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia obviously falls at this first, very basic hurdle. So, there is no way it can demonstrate satisfaction of the further requirements agreed upon by CHOGM. </p>
<p>These are that the “process” of appointing judges should:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… ensure equality of opportunity for all who are eligible for judicial office; appointment on merit; and that appropriate consideration is given to the need for the progressive attainment of gender equity and the removal of other historic factors of discrimination. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>We know where things stand in Australia on the last point. Before the 2013 election, Brandis was <a href="http://www.liv.asn.au/Practice-Resources/Law-Institute-Journal/Archived-Issues/LIJ-August-2013/Dreyfus-v-Brandis--Federal-election-Q---A">dismissive</a> of taking any deliberate steps to improve judicial diversity.</p>
<p>The Bingham report reveals that Australia is in a minority. The executive still has sole responsibility for making appointments to superior courts in just 18.7%, or nine out of 48, independent Commonwealth jurisdictions. In the rest, either a judicial appointments commission or the legislature has some say in selection.</p>
<p>The presence of Canada and New Zealand among this minority gives little comfort. As the Judicial Conference of Australia report details, they both use selection criteria and have more transparent processes in place. </p>
<p>Additionally, both countries are actively debating, and experimenting with, further reform. In Canada, this has included establishing ad hoc parliamentary committees to draw up shortlists of potential appointees.</p>
<p>Australia’s federal government remains attached to an opaque system of appointments that is in retreat within the country and throughout the Commonwealth. The process is inadequate, indefensible and does a disservice to the individuals who are appointed under it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45833/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Lynch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is no criticism of Australia’s judiciary to say that it would be preferable, both for them and the public, if they took office after a more transparent process.Andrew Lynch, Professor, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/448882015-07-23T04:19:05Z2015-07-23T04:19:05ZMoney makes world of politics go round, and keeping it clean isn’t simple<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89267/original/image-20150722-31241-yywzz3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The haste to deregulate political finance has led to political participation in the US becoming highly unequal.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Jason Reed</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What do Russia, the US and South Africa have in common? Not often lumped together, all three countries face significant challenges regulating money in politics.</p>
<p>Through the careful manipulation and extreme regulation of political finance, Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party have been able to entrench their rule. In South Africa, the complete lack of regulation – bar public funding – has served the African National Congress well to maintain its dominance. The US has created a system of political finance that ensures inherently unequal opportunities for participation.</p>
<p>But Australians need not look offshore to see how debilitating the misuse of money and state resources is for representative government. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has revealed the extent of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/untangling-the-web-how-the-icac-scandal-unfolded/5686346">scandals in NSW politics</a> in recent years.</p>
<p>The role of money in politics challenges both rich and poor countries. Its abuse raises problems of graft, corruption and cronyism. It undermines legitimacy and governance.</p>
<p>However, money is essential for mobilising election campaigns, sustaining political party organisations and communicating with citizens. And countries like Sweden have managed to avoid falling foul of malfeasance and graft, despite almost no regulation of money in politics.</p>
<p>So, how can the role of money in politics be cleaned up most effectively? New evidence is available from a comparative report and dataset just released by the <a href="http://moneypoliticstransparency.org/">Money, Politics and Transparency</a> project, produced by <a href="https://www.globalintegrity.org/">Global Integrity</a>, the <a href="http://www.sunlightfoundation.com">Sunlight Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://www.electoralintegrityproject.com">Electoral Integrity Project</a>.</p>
<p>The Money, Politics and Transparency project investigated three crucial questions: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>How do countries around the world attempt to regulate the role of money in politics? </p></li>
<li><p>What triggers landmark reforms? </p></li>
<li><p>What “works”, what fails, and why?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The <a href="http://www.moneypoliticsandtransparency.org">project website</a> presents evidence from its political finance indicators, comparing 54 countries worldwide. The report compares how this problem is tackled in emerging economies as diverse as India, Mexico, South Africa and Russia, as well as in established democracies such as Britain, Japan, Sweden and the US.</p>
<h2>How do states regulate money in politics?</h2>
<p>Policies regulating the role of money in politics include disclosure requirements, contribution limits, spending caps and public subsidies. Most countries use a combination of these policies to try to regulate the flow of money into the political arena. </p>
<p>Another way to think about regulation is the degree to which governments intervene in the system of political finance. This can range from laissez-faire or minimal intervention, such as having only transparency requirements, to extremely comprehensive regulations involving all four policies.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=198&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89253/original/image-20150722-31244-11fnup.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Using <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/">data</a> from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the project used statistical techniques to show that while countries such as South Africa, Sweden and India have more laissez-faire policies, others such as Brazil, Indonesia and Russia are more interventionist.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89254/original/image-20150722-31203-8kcn1e.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The degree of state regulation of political finance around the world, from less (yellow) to more (red).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is difficult to say whether more or less legal control is better. This is, in large part, because effective regulation requires enforcement. India has a highly regulated system of political financing but its enforcement capabilities are so weak that more laws simply lead to almost all political actors increasing their efforts to find loopholes. </p>
<p>And not every country is like Sweden. Its unique social and political culture allows it to have a highly effective and egalitarian system of political funding. Sweden has high levels of transparency and a level playing field in party competition – despite almost no regulation.</p>
<p>The project’s political finance indicators find that transparency requirements are one of the most common reforms implemented during the last decade. But disclosure rules are often inconsistently applied. </p>
<p>The results suggest that eight out of ten countries have statutes requiring parties and/or candidates to submit contribution and expenditure reports. But this rarely happens during campaign periods. The public is therefore unable to access much of the information reported to oversight authorities.</p>
<p>Further, restrictions on contributions and expenditures are often undermined by loopholes. For example, laws often limit the amount an individual can donate directly to a political party or to a candidate, but not both. Similar loopholes in regard to anonymous and corporate donations are common. </p>
<p>Spending limits also fail in many cases. Few countries also regulate election spending by non-profits, unions and independent groups. This is regarded as a private activity.</p>
<p>Finally, states have adopted public funding and subsidy laws to reduce dependence upon private sector donors and the dwindling band of party members. In practice, however, funds can be unfairly allocated or subject to misuse and abuse by incumbent parties and candidates.</p>
<h2>How do we clean up politics?</h2>
<p>Designing a “good” system of political financing will necessarily entail trade-offs between values such as individual freedom of expression and equitable political competition. </p>
<p>There is no one-size-fits-all design. Much will depend on country-specific factors that determine which values are emphasised. </p>
<p>For example, the US is all about individual freedoms. This is acutely reflected in its haste to deregulate political finance. The trade-off is that political participation becomes highly unequal.</p>
<p>Effective laws depend upon enforcement capabilities, political will and autonomous oversight agencies. However, oversight bodies are often hamstrung through a lack of merit-based appointments, independent leadership, technical capacity and authority. Partisan appointments, insufficient staff and budgets and/or a lack of substantive legal power hinder oversight bodies in countries as diverse as the US, Romania, Nigeria and Russia.</p>
<p>Countries should not rely on a single policy tool to try to control money in politics. And policies must be applied in a consistent way. </p>
<p>For instance, public funding without spending or contribution limits can lead to a campaign finance arms race. Disclosure requirements without spending caps or equitable public funding may erode public trust in the electoral process. The project finds that it is more effective to use a balanced mix of regulations fitting each country.</p>
<p>Lax regulation can lead to skyrocketing campaign costs, corruption, cronyism and winner-take-all politics. And yet, excessive regulation can lead to loophole-seeking and entrenched elites.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44888/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Abel van Es does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The role of money in politics challenges rich and poor countries worldwide. Its abuse raises problems of graft, corruption and cronyism, undermining legitimacy and governance.Andrea Abel van Es, Senior Research Fellow, Electoral Integrity Project, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/449302015-07-22T01:14:53Z2015-07-22T01:14:53ZCan Bronwyn Bishop learn anything from the UK expenses scandal?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89250/original/image-20150721-20173-cq1ty8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Expenses scandals like Bronwyn Bishop's can have a devastating effect on parliament and on trust in the political system.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent revelations about Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-much-public-outrage-can-tony-abbott-wear-for-bronwyn-bishop-44853">expenses claims</a> have caused something of a furore in Australian politics. Financial scandals are somewhat par for the course in parliamentary politics. They can have a devastating effect on parliament and on trust in the political system, as the UK’s parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 showed. </p>
<p>So what can Australia learn from the UK’s experience?</p>
<h2>What was the UK’s expenses scandal?</h2>
<p>The UK scandal began when a Telegraph journalist submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act to view all MPs’ expenses claims and receipts. MPs were highly resistant to the publication of these documents. After a battle that went all the way to the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7404031.stm">High Court</a> and a decision by parliament to try to specifically protect MPs from the Freedom of Information Act, the details of four years’ worth of expenses claims were leaked to The Telegraph. </p>
<p>The newspaper published the most juicy details in small bursts over the next few weeks, attracting more than half-a-million <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/may/20/telegraph-mps-expenses-circulation">new readers</a> in the process. </p>
<p>More and more revelations appeared – even then-prime minister Gordon Brown wasn’t immune. In particular, it came to light that several MPs were “flipping” their second homes, claiming for mortgages on homes that didn’t exist, or paying rent to wives, sisters and other family members. </p>
<p>Other expenses were much more minor and often bordered on the bizarre. Stalwart Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers famously tried to claim for a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/23/mps-expenses-conservatives">floating duck house</a> in his pond. </p>
<p>The revelations continued for more than a year and weren’t contained within parliament. Following the general election in May 2010, David Laws, the newly appointed chief secretary to the Treasury, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7783687/David-Laws-resigns-over-expenses-claim.html">resigned</a> after reports that he had been claiming expenses for <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7780642/MPs-Expenses-Treasury-chief-David-Laws-his-secret-lover-and-a-40000-claim.html">renting a room</a> in a house owned by his partner.</p>
<h2>Was the Speaker implicated?</h2>
<p>There are some interesting parallels not only between the two political systems, but also between the two Speakers. At the time of the UK expenses scandal, the House of Commons Speaker was former Labour MP Michael Martin. </p>
<p>Like Bishop, Martin was a controversial figure, accused of being <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/101336/Is-Michael-Martin-incompetent-greedy-and-shameless">too partisan</a>. And, just like his Australian counterpart, he found himself in hot water over his travel expenses when it was revealed that he had spent £1400 on <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5298316/Michael-Martin-Speaker-spent-1400-on-chauffeurs-to-his-local-job-centre-and-Celtic-Park.html">chauffeur-driven cars</a>. </p>
<p>Martin was already seen to be a particularly lavish Speaker. It was reported the previous year that £1.7 million of taxpayers’ money had been spent refurbishing his <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/1583227/Michael-Martins-home-gets-1.7m-makeover.html">official parliamentary residence</a>. </p>
<p>What made things even worse was that Martin had so vigorously tried to block members’ expenses claims being published in the first place. Support for him in the House of Commons soon began to wear thin, with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/17/nick-clegg-speaker-michael-martin">party leaders</a> calling for his resignation. He was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8054657.stm">openly challenged</a> by MPs in the chamber, who called for a vote of no confidence in his tenure as Speaker.</p>
<h2>Was simply paying back the money acceptable?</h2>
<p>Bishop has repaid the money for the helicopter travel, though many question whether <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/sorry-but-bronwyn-bishop-hasnt-apologised-for-unacceptable-actions-20150721-gigsl7.html">this is enough</a>.</p>
<p>The UK’s experience was very similar. MPs were quick to offer to repay the money. Then-opposition leader David Cameron publicly announced that all Conservative MPs found to have made false or inappropriate claims would <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/12/mps-expenses-david-cameron-conservatives">pay back the money</a>. </p>
<p>The claims of all MPs were later audited by an independent panel led by Sir Thomas Legg, which <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8493634.stm">found</a> that more than half of all MPs had made either dishonest or simply incorrect claims. It ordered them to pay back a whopping <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248422/Sir-Thomas-Legg-orders-MPs-repay-1-3million-overclaimed-expenses.html">£1.3 million</a>. This included Brown, who was instructed to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/12/gordon-brown-repay-mps-expenses">repay £12,000</a>. </p>
<p>Many questioned the system as, just like Bishop now, they felt that they had acted within the rules that existed at the time. Paying back retrospectively seemed unfair.</p>
<h2>What happened in the end?</h2>
<p>Martin was one of the earliest casualties. Only a couple of weeks after the first expenses bombshells had hit the papers, he announced he would <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5350083/MPs-expenses-Speaker-Michael-Martin-announces-his-resignation.html">resign</a> from his position the following month. He later stood down as MP too. </p>
<p>But, in the long term, Martin was one of the more fortunate ones. Many more MPs resigned from their frontbench roles and retired at the 2010 election. Those found to have made fraudulent claims, such as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017">Denis MacShane</a>, were not only made to pay back the money, but were handed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Expenses-MPs-and-their-sentences-how-long-each-served.html">prison sentences</a> too. </p>
<p>The expenses scandal led to the creation of the <a href="http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/Pages/default.aspx">Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority</a> (IPSA), which took over the regulation and policing of MPs’ expenses as well as their pay. </p>
<p>MPs themselves became much more transparent about what they were spending and why. IPSA publishes their claims online every couple of months, and parliament also publishes the Speaker’s <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/speakers-office/speakers-publications/foi-request-on-speakers-expenditure/">travel and expenses claims</a>. MPs are much more careful and some – like Conservative Philip Hollobone – revel in being among the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5104564/Meet-Westminsters-cheapest-MP-Philip-Hollobone.html">most thrifty MPs</a>. </p>
<p>These are all welcome moves in the right direction, but there is little evidence that they have made a difference to the widespread public anger about MPs’ pay and expenses. Trust in our representatives remains very low. This, rather than whether Bishop has <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sorry-but-bronwyn-bishop-hasnt-apologised-for-unacceptable-actions-20150721-gigsl7">genuinely apologised</a>, is what Australian politicians should be worried about right now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44930/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>During the UK’s parliamentary expenses scandal, many questioned the system as – just like Bronwyn Bishop in Australia now – they felt that they had acted within the rules that existed at the time.Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/449152015-07-20T20:12:50Z2015-07-20T20:12:50ZA truly independent Speaker could renew Australia’s parliamentary democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88959/original/image-20150720-21059-1i4jnqb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The speakership has become so politicised in Australia that we’ve been blinded to the possibilities that having a truly independent Speaker might open up.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is almost 505 years ago to the month since King Henry VIII ordered the <a href="http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/tower.html">execution</a> of Edmund Dudley on Tower Hill. His supposed offence? Among other things, that as Speaker of the House of Commons and as a government official, he had <a href="http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8147">“profited greatly from his position”</a>. </p>
<p>We have come a long way since the days of Henry VIII. And Capital Hill in Canberra is quite some distance from Tower Hill in London. But the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-18/bishop-calls-travel-investigation-a-beat-up/6630724">latest revelations</a> about Bronwyn Bishop’s use of parliamentary entitlements have led to renewed scrutiny of the Speaker’s role in Australia’s system of government.</p>
<p>By making the speakership a political gift of the party in power, Australia is missing a major opportunity for democratic renewal of its parliament.</p>
<p>Australia is different to the UK insofar as it <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-20/matthewson-bishop-should-resign-over-incompetence-not-bias/6632516">lacks an independent speaker</a>. Commentators usually focus on the Speaker’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/bronwyn-bishop-and-the-history-of-speaker-independence-24899">perceived political bias</a> in refereeing Question Time and <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/nothing-is-more-potent-than-bronwyn-bishop-armed-with-a-94a-20141127-11vgye.html">ejecting</a> opposition MPs from the chamber, and the need for a more <a href="https://twitter.com/RobOakeshott1/status/622397008041545728">impartial adjudicator</a>. But that’s only part of the story.</p>
<p>The contemporary British experience shows that the importance of having an independent Speaker goes beyond merely giving red cards more evenhandedly. The reality is that the speakership has become so politicised in Australia – by both sides of politics – that we’ve been blinded to the possibilities that having a truly independent Speaker might open up.</p>
<h2>What would it mean to have an independent Speaker?</h2>
<p>Upon being elected to the role, the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/">Speaker of the House of Commons</a> – the UK equivalent of Australia’s House of Representatives – must “resign from their political party” and even continue to be apolitical in their retirement. </p>
<p>British election law thus <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/2000/ukpga_20000041_en_1.html#pt2">provides for</a> the Speaker to run at elections as “Speaker” rather than as a candidate with a party affiliation. Traditionally, the major parties do not run a candidate against the Speaker. </p>
<p>Crucially, the Speaker’s political fortunes thus become divorced from the political fortunes of the party of which the Speaker was once a member. The Speaker speaks for parliament, not for the government.</p>
<p>John Bercow has been the Speaker of the House of Commons since 2009. A former Tory, Bercow’s speakership has <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/plot-foiled-unseat-speaker-heres-how-john-bercow-transformed-parliament-better">certainly</a> not been <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/politics/8688500.stm">uncontroversial</a>. But his approach to the role nonetheless gives an indication of what a truly independent Speaker could do in Canberra.</p>
<p>Like Australian Speakers, part of Bercow’s role is to act as a referee. But in that capacity, his independent speakership frequently produces scenes almost unimaginable in Australia’s House of Representatives. Not only does he give frank warnings to Tory MPs, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVs1jN85w10">government ministers</a>, but he has also cut off Prime Minister David Cameron mid-answer during Prime Minister’s Questions.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vbbr0fWkIx8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">John Bercow interrupts David Cameron.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Bercow’s independence also gives rise to a much more important function: allowing the parliament to hold the government to account on substantive topics. Walter Bagehot, the great political writer of the 19th century, <a href="http://juspoliticum.com/Walter-Bagehot-The-Non-legislative.html">wrote</a> that one of parliament’s most important jobs is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… watching and checking the ministers of the Crown. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Having a truly independent Speaker allows for the parliament, as an institution separate from the government, to keep ministers accountable.</p>
<h2>How does the British Speaker work?</h2>
<p>The British Speaker works to keep ministers accountable, in part, through the Urgent Question. Bercow <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/designing-a-parliament-for-the-21st-century/">has described</a> this as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a device which allows any Member of Parliament on any sitting day to petition me to demand that a department supplies a minister to answer some issue or matter that has arisen very suddenly.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bercow has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11614687/This-chart-shows-why-John-Bercow-really-is-the-backbenchers-champion.html">enthusiastically</a> used this procedure as a way to allow the House, and particularly backbenchers, to ask the government about how it is responding to the most pressing issues of the day. Ministers are usually required to keep answering questions for as long as questions are being asked.</p>
<p>These Urgent Questions are over and above the usual ordinary opportunities to ask questions during the British equivalent of Question Time. These questions demonstrate how independent control of parliamentary procedures can enhance the accountability of the government.</p>
<p>In late June, for example, Home Secretary Theresa May was summoned to answer questions for almost an hour on the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150624/debtext/150624-0001.htm#15062462000004">“management of the border in Calais”</a>. The next day, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith was summoned to answer questions for a similar time on the topic of <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150625/debtext/150625-0001.htm#15062546000003.">recently released child poverty statistics</a>. In early July, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale was summoned to answer questions solely on <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150706/debtext/150706-0001.htm#1507066000004">concessionary television licences</a> for pensioners.</p>
<p>It is impossible to imagine anything like this in Australia. An Australian Speaker, affiliated with the prime minister’s political party, and with possible future political ambitions of their own, would have no incentive to drag their fellow party members into the House for open-ended scrutiny and potential embarrassment on the week’s major news story. </p>
<p>Nor would an Australian Speaker have the security of running unopposed at the next election. This allows the British Speaker to stand up on behalf of the backbenchers of all sides of politics.</p>
<p>One should not romanticise the British system. Bercow is often <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10081413/Speaker-John-Bercow-puts-up-his-nanny-in-taxpayer-funded-flat-in-Palace-of-Westminster.html">criticised</a>. His predecessor, Michael Martin, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5350083/MPs-expenses-Speaker-Michael-Martin-announces-his-resignation.html">resigned</a> as part of the UK parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009. </p>
<p>But, like the British, Australia’s is a system of parliamentary democracy. And parliamentary democracy relies on the parliament, as an institution, functioning to hold the government to account. Without a truly independent Speaker presiding over how that accountability takes place, Australia’s parliamentary democracy is deficient.</p>
<p>On many occasions, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY7F2mzpT1Q">spoken proudly</a> of Australia’s <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-06-24/magna-carta-lecture-parliament-house-canberra-0">constitutional roots</a> in UK history. Whatever the lessons of history, it is time to consider whether Australia might learn something from current-day Britain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Goss does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By making the speakership a political gift of the party in power, Australia is missing a major opportunity for democratic renewal of its parliament.Ryan Goss, Lecturer in Law, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/443712015-07-08T20:06:36Z2015-07-08T20:06:36ZWhat can Australia learn from indigenous recognition in other countries?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87696/original/image-20150708-31595-18c1fkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's proposals to recognise Indigenous people in its Constitution will likely be much less substantive than those of many other countries.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Moir</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-abbott-announces-community-consultation-process-44326">bipartisan push</a> to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia’s Constitution is in line with recent international practice. However, the Australian proposals will likely be much less substantive than those of many other countries.</p>
<p>Most specific proposals, such as those of the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Constitutional_Recognition_of_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Interim_Report/e02">Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians</a>, avoid any language of indigenous “rights”. But it is almost inevitable that symbolic recognition will have political and economic consequences. </p>
<p>The consequences of indigenous constitutional recognition have varied widely between countries that have made such changes. But where these consequences have been negative, largely it has been because the political system has been captured – by indigenous groups themselves (as in Malaysia) or by non-indigenous people seeking to entrench their privilege (as in Guatemala).</p>
<h2>International perspectives</h2>
<p>The International Labor Organisation (ILO) <a href="http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/no169/lang--en/index.htm">Convention 169</a> calls on countries to recognise the cultural and economic specificities of indigenous groups and to undertake special measures in response to vulnerable and marginalised groups. While only <a href="http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314:NO">22 countries</a> have ratified this, many more constitutions around the world recognise a special status for indigenous groups to differing extents and with differing implications.</p>
<p>Canada, like Australia, is predominantly populated by descendants of European settlers. But since 1982, Canada’s Constitution contains a clause that <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#h-52">“recognises and affirms”</a> the rights of aboriginal groups. This recognition was one of the reasons Canada withdrew from the International Whaling Convention. Canada does not allow commercial whaling, but a moratorium on all whaling would have conflicted with its commitment to aboriginal livelihoods.</p>
<p>In Latin America, a wave of constitutional reform since the 1980s has seen many countries include indigenous recognition in their constitutions. In many cases, these changes came on the back of extensive violent conflict in which indigenous groups were severely victimised. </p>
<p>In Guatemala, the end of a vicious civil war in 1994 was accompanied by <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-9856.2006.00207.x/abstract">constitutional reform</a>. This included recognition of indigenous land and customs.</p>
<p>But “New World” countries do not “own” such measures. Malaysia’s Constitution recognises the <a href="http://goo.gl/eMCU6O">“special position”</a> of the Malays and other indigenous groups. It empowers the government – through the constitutional monarch – to take affirmative action measures to safeguard this.</p>
<p>In Malaysia, many critics see this “recognition” as having evolved into little more than a constitutional figleaf for <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-03-01/does-affirmative-action-work">racist and corrupt government policies</a>. Since the 1970s, a beefed-up Sedition Act has made even questioning these rights an <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1011697712638?LI=true">imprisonable offence</a>.</p>
<p>A tragic irony of the Malaysian case is that the groups that have the strongest claims to being the “aborigines” of Malaysia – the small, highland <em>Orang Asli</em> (literally “original people”) communities – have not benefited significantly from these policies. They remain <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/austindlr17&div=12&g_sent=1&collection=journals">severely marginalised</a>, economically and politically.</p>
<p>The Malaysian experience differs significantly from the New World cases. The beneficiary groups – together termed the <em>bumiputera</em> (sons of the soil) – constitute a demographic majority and are politically dominant, particularly the ethnic Malays.</p>
<p>But where beneficiary groups make up a small proportion of the population, constitutional recognition may have a very limited impact. Those groups often lack the political weight to leverage constitutional change into greater social change. </p>
<p>This is the case in Guatemala. Despite the extensive nature of the constitutional reforms, social and political progress for indigenous groups has been limited. Instead, the political system reverted to the Latino-dominated elites that had controlled Guatemala during the long civil war.</p>
<h2>Recognition versus redistribution</h2>
<p>Many political theorists like to distinguish between cultural “recognition” and socioeconomic “redistribution” as different aims. But as philosopher <a href="http://newleftreview.org/II/3/nancy-fraser-rethinking-recognition">Nancy Fraser</a> points out, it is wrong to treat these as mutually exclusive goals. </p>
<p>There is a complex relationship between recognition and redistribution. They cannot be separated.</p>
<p>Nowhere is this more evident than in constitutional recognition of indigenous status. The examples cited above appear to be much more substantive in their wording and impact than the kinds of changes to Australia’s Constitution that are being suggested. </p>
<p>But reflecting indigenous groups in a constitution in anything other than a shallow, formulaic way is to recognise their social and cultural traditions. This carries political and potentially redistributive consequences. In Canada, the recognition of aboriginal rights was the constitutional foundation for the eventual creation of a <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28.6/">separate Nunavut province</a> with extensive self-government in 1999.</p>
<p>Opponents of symbolic recognition in constitutions – whether in Australia or elsewhere – hence sometimes see it as the thin edge of the wedge. One <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-constitution-works-because-it-doesnt-define-national-identity-43253">argument</a> is that the Australian Constitution has worked so well precisely because its basic function is procedural, rather than “national” or identity-based.</p>
<p>Yet this argument provokes the rejoinder: the constitution has worked well for whom? Equality before the law in itself is often of little benefit to groups seeking to rectify decades of active marginalisation in all other areas of cultural, economic and political life. This is because they lack the economic and political resources to translate legal equality into socioeconomic equality.</p>
<p>Constitutional recognition is certainly the thin edge of a wedge, but it is not one Australians should be afraid of. Rather, it should form the basis for a renewed conversation about how Australia can – to paraphrase the Expert Panel – recognise, respect and secure the advancement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham K. Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Constitutional recognition may have very limited impact if the groups benefiting from the change lack the political weight to leverage it into greater social change.Graham K. Brown, Professor of International Development, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/423692015-06-03T04:26:16Z2015-06-03T04:26:16ZEuropean movements could mark the end of ‘representative’ politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83198/original/image-20150528-26028-1qucm4o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C269%2C4096%2C2697&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The success of Nicola Sturgeon's Scottish National Party has profoundly disrupted the tedious pendulum movement between Left and Right.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Robert Perry</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series, a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/shortcodes/images-videos/articles-democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> with the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>In the wake of an extraordinary climax to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/uk-general-election-2015">UK general election</a>, it might seem strange to be posing the question of the health of representative politics. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-1997-10235076.html">turnout</a> for the election was 66.1%, the highest recorded in the UK for 18 years.</p>
<p>The tedious pendulum movement between Left and Right – which many believe to be at the root of the current malaise – was profoundly disrupted by the explosion in support for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-snp-has-blown-british-politics-apart-and-the-uk-must-now-change-if-it-is-to-survive-41507">Scottish National Party</a> (SNP) and by the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32633719">13% of the vote</a> gained by the UK Independence Party (UKIP).</p>
<p>Crisis? What crisis? But despite the interest generated by the UK election, signs of change – even transformation – in Western democracies are not far from hand.</p>
<h2>‘Strong’ and ‘stable’ government</h2>
<p>Much of the media crowed with news of the Conservatives’ clear mandate to govern. The markets <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/may/08/pound-jumps-shares-surge-general-election-live">went up</a>; the pound strengthened. “Strong” and “stable” government was restored after a temporary hiatus brought about by a hung parliament and the need for a coalition government.</p>
<p>While the Conservatives <a href="https://theconversation.com/voting-system-gives-tories-a-result-most-uk-voters-didnt-want-41595">polled</a> 37% of the popular vote, it ended up with 51% of the seats and a clear majority in the House of Commons. By contrast, the Greens and UKIP combined polled 16.5% of the popular vote but ended up with two seats between them. Such disproportionality makes a mockery of the “one person, one vote” notion that underpins democracy. </p>
<p>So, the government claims to represent the British people – but the maths suggests otherwise.</p>
<p>None of this is of concern for the markets and much of the mainstream media. We are collectively cajoled to accept this as democratic legitimacy in the face of evidence that suggests it is anything but.</p>
<p>We have, as Lord Hailsham famously put it, <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/elective-dictatorship-democratic-mandate/">“elective dictatorship”</a> – the imposition of state power in a manner that meets with the approval of a small minority. But that doesn’t matter, because that small minority includes all those who “count”.</p>
<h2>Weak parties as organisational totems</h2>
<p>The issues concerning the health of representative politics are by no means exhausted simply by looking at the outcome. Whereas Labour and the Conservatives could draw on the support of millions of members in the 1960s, they are now left with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/sep/29/labour-conservatvies-uk-party-membership-is-tiny">rapidly declining memberships</a> in the 100,000s each. </p>
<p>Their memberships are not merely declining – they are ageing. This means they need to turn to other sources of support. In the case of the Conservatives, this pulls them toward corporate Britain, banks and “high net worth” individuals whose wealth and power ensures much greater “representation” than the ordinary party member – let alone the voter.</p>
<p>The Labour Party, once the flagship for organised labour, looks even worse. The declining memberships of trade unions are creating a financial crisis for the party. This is not to say that the trade unions exercise no influence. Ed Miliband’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/26/unions-decisive-role-labour-leadership-vote-despite-reform">election</a> to the leadership in 2010 is testimony to the over-preponderance of union influence in the party. Labour’s credentials as a mobiliser and representer of “ordinary people” looks flimsy.</p>
<p>With a steady hollowing out of membership, the cosying up to vested interests with pockets deep enough to maintain party bureaucracies in the manner to which they have been accustomed and the televisual display of forced smiles, today’s political parties barely “represent”. They are rather organisational totems: expressions of certain values, vaguely defined to appeal to as many as possible.</p>
<p>But how then to interpret the SNP’s extraordinary rise from relative obscurity to a position of near monopoly in Scotland?</p>
<p>The SNP’s emergence can be read as a pragmatic response to this crisis. It is part of that more general phenomenon spreading across Europe and elsewhere: a generalised discontent with the state of democracy, resulting in support for parties that draw their support from the promise to highlight the iniquities and failures of the present system.</p>
<h2>A new cycle?</h2>
<p>The current cycle started with Beppe Grillo’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/25/beppe-grillo-italy-election-success">Five Star Movement</a> winning the largest vote of any single party in the 2013 Italian election. It gathered pace with the emergence of <a href="https://theconversation.com/syriza-sweeps-to-victory-in-greek-election-promising-an-end-to-humiliation-36680">Syriza</a> in Greece and <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-podemos-the-party-revolutionising-spanish-politics-33802">Podemos</a> in Spain.</p>
<p>The emergence of the SNP should not be read as a source of comfort for those thinking that the 2015 UK election represents a re-enchantment with representative politics. The signs are clear, warning us of the exhaustion of this manner of doing politics – and thus a deepening of the crisis, now accentuated by the rejection of “Westminster” by a large portion of the Scottish electorate.</p>
<p>Why does any of this matter?</p>
<p>We are reaching a tipping point in the public’s perception of the democratic content of representative democracies. The emergence of “something has to change” parties, movements and tropes in the UK and elsewhere is a symptom of this feeling. In Spain, a plethora of new parties have emerged since the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/15/spain-15-m-movement-activism">15-M movement</a> of 2011 to challenge the dominance of the two main parties. </p>
<p>What unites many of these initiatives is the desire to generate a “second transition” for the Spanish constitution: a constituent process of re-founding Spanish democracy to make it more capacious, representative, connective and ethical. </p>
<p>Ada Colau, a leading figure of the new movements and the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/25/spains-indignados-ada-colau-elections-mayor-barcelona">newly elected mayor</a> of Barcelona, is an emblematic figure of the new politics and the new thinking. Colau emerged not out of the trade union movement nor out of the traditional parties, but out of the direct action “street” politics that for so long in Spain as elsewhere turned its nose up at involvement in electoral and mainstream politics.</p>
<p>Colau represents a programme that promises greater transparency and engagement, ethical governance and direct participation in the key decisions that face Barcelona’s citizens: unemployment, lack of opportunity, austerity, loss of power to influence and participate in collective life. She is in favour of “connective governance”, which seeks to develop partnerships, coalitions and alliances, and engages individual citizens as well as existing interest groups and elites.</p>
<p>Others are urging something more radical. They seek a transition to direct democratic governance using peer-to-peer technologies. Many of these new initiatives have themselves been created on the back of the greatly increased mobilising capability brought about by technological developments.</p>
<p>In Spain, close to 400 new parties have emerged since 15-M. Many have been created on the basis of interactions facilitated through technology. Some started out as a Facebook initiative, a Reddit platform or alliances generated by activists involved in the occupation of the towns and squares in 2011 – and combinations of the above.</p>
<p>The new political parties indicate this <a href="https://theconversation.com/connective-action-the-publics-answer-to-democratic-dysfunction-33089">connective logic</a>. They do not articulate any particular ideology that would be familiar to an observer of 20th-century politics. The activists behind them see themselves as deploying political tools to generate the momentum necessary to reboot the system in favour of a connective logic rather than to capture power in the manner of the traditional parties.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83203/original/image-20150528-26041-1rmd5z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Millions have taken to the streets in Spain to demand political change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Chema Moya</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Something has to change</h2>
<p>All these initiatives are united by the idea that “something has to change”. That “something” is the very idea at the heart of our contemporary practices of democracy: governance is something practised by a professional caste of politicians acting in our interests and in our name on the basis of a single gesture. That is, we mark our ballot papers once every few years to deliver “strong” and “stable” government whether it has the backing of a numerical majority or not.</p>
<p>Such an antique conception of “self-governance” has now become the very substance of political contestation. For example, it is noticeable in Spain that the tumultuous political climate in 2011 later took on a more optimistic and engaging flavour. “Street” protestors began to think of ways they could engage in mainstream as well as street politics.</p>
<p>Podemos’ emergence in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/spain-peoples-party-win-european-elections">2014 European elections</a>, when it captured five seats after only a few weeks in existence, offered hope to those who had previously thought that change could only be effected from “without” – by occupations and protests. Podemos created a hubbub of a kind that should enthuse democrats of whatever stripe. </p>
<p>But far from channelling energies in a single direction and to a single party, Podemos’ rise has led to all manner of other initiatives, parties, groups emerging – so much so that it has created a kind of political laboratory, where citizens seek out others in gestures of pragmatic co-operation and experimentation.</p>
<p>The challenge presented by the crisis of representative politics is to find an institutional expression for the connective energies and desire to participate articulated in the “something has to change” gestures that we see in the emergence of the SNP, Podemos and their ilk.</p>
<p>The alternative is to allow the mantra of “strong” and “stable” government peddled so emphatically by much of the media, corporations, financial markets, currency traders and politicians to stave off the necessary process of change needed to make the leap from 18th- to 21st-century governance.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Simon Tormey’s new book <a href="https://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745681955">The End of Representative Politics</a> is available from <a href="https://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745681955">Polity</a> and <a href="http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745681964,subjectCd-PO17.html">Wiley</a>. You can read John Keane’s review <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-representative-politics-41997">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42369/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Tormey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With a steady hollowing out of membership, the cosying up to vested interests with pockets deep enough to maintain party, today’s political parties barely “represent”.Simon Tormey, Professor of Political Theory and Head of the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/396952015-04-23T06:44:02Z2015-04-23T06:44:02ZPopulism and democracy: friend or foe? Rising stars deepen dilemma<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78337/original/image-20150417-20751-j09gnx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras and Pablo Iglesias of Podemos have taken their populist parties to victory in Greece and a lead in the polls in Spain. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fanis_x/16158814657/">Flickr/Fanis Xouryas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of a series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures-crossroads-europe">Crossroads Europe</a> for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> project, a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/shortcodes/images-videos/articles-democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> with the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Over the past two decades, populism in Europe, the US and the Antipodes has been almost exclusively associated with the radical right. When populism is mentioned, figures linked with anti-immigrant sentiment or xenophobia like <a href="https://theconversation.com/hanson-gets-the-band-back-together-can-she-make-an-impact-34747">Pauline Hanson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/geert-wilders-is-back-and-he-has-european-domination-on-his-mind-15775">Geert Wilders</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-the-le-pen-family-feud-be-a-cunning-political-ploy-39980">Marine Le Pen</a> come to mind. </p>
<p>Due to their inclination for polarised, uncompromising politics and aggressive targeting of vulnerable minorities, these public figures are are often viewed as a dangerous threat to democracy.</p>
<p>However, a shift has been taking place in recent months. The election of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/syriza-sweeps-to-victory-in-greek-election-promising-an-end-to-humiliation-36680">Syriza</a> government in Greece and the rise of <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-podemos-the-party-revolutionising-spanish-politics-33802">Podemos</a> in Spain – which is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Spanish_general_election,_2015">polling strongly</a> in the lead-up to the national election later in 2015 – have drawn attention to the rise of left-wing populism in Europe. </p>
<p>This has led previous naysayers to reconsider their position. If not all populists are interested in targeting immigrants and demonising Muslims – instead, some seem to be genuinely interested in recuperating the power of “the people” – is populism so bad? Do emerging populist groups around the world have the potential to bring about more inclusive versions of democracy?</p>
<p>The short answer is a little bit of both. Whether on the left or the right, populism has both democratic and anti-democratic tendencies. These often manifest simultaneously, making populism quite difficult to assess.</p>
<h2>Democratic tendencies</h2>
<p>One important democratic tendency of populism is that it can make politics more accessible, comprehensible and “popular”. When people talk about politics being boring, they are definitely not talking about populism. Populism can offer an important corrective to the dry, technocratic nature of much contemporary politics by making it far more interesting and relatable to everyday citizens. </p>
<p>Critics often regard populists’ embrace of the language of “the common man” as demagogy. The flipside of this is that engaging people with politics – especially those who might otherwise be disenchanted or uninterested – is vital to a healthy democracy. </p>
<p>Populism acknowledges that modern politics is not just a matter of putting forward policies for voters to deliberate rationally upon as some kind of <em>Homo politicus</em>. Rather, it appeals to the people with a full performative “package” that is both attractive and relevant.</p>
<p>Populist actors also have the ability to include previously excluded identities within their performances of “the people”. This symbolically transforms these identities and associated sites of contestation into “legitimate” political actors and sites. </p>
<p>In the recent past of Venezuela, Bolivia and Thailand, populists such as Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Thaksin Shinawatra have dramatically increased the inclusion of the poor by including them in their conception of “the people”. This has proven to be democratic beyond the mere symbolic level. The poor in each of these countries subsequently experienced a strong increase in material and political inclusion.</p>
<p>Supporters of Syriza and Podemos likely hope that these parties might similarly return more political and economic power to those who have been on the receiving end of some of the Eurocrisis’ worst outcomes.</p>
<p>More controversially, even populists on the right of the political spectrum can include previously marginalised voices in their conception of “the people”. Katter’s Australian Party leader <a href="http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/politicans-radio-jocks-call-assistance-farmers/2481981/">Bob Katter</a> has proven to be one of the most vocal representatives of rural Australians, who are often ignored by the mainstream parties.</p>
<p>Similarly, federal senator <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-31/jacqui-lambie-launches-political-party-jacqui-lambie-network/6360840">Jacqui Lambie</a> has certainly demonstrated a dedication to raising issues pertinent to Tasmania, which are often left off the political agenda. Even Hanson has shown a relatively democratic streak at times – her One Nation Party advocates a system of <a href="http://www.onenation.com.au/hot-topics-voting/citizens-initiated-referendum">Citizen Initiated Referenda</a>.</p>
<p>A third democratic tendency of populism is its ability to expose the dysfunctions of today’s democratic systems. The most obvious way it does this is by revealing corruption or elite collusion, and by calling for the increased sovereignty of “the people” in the name of democracy. </p>
<p>This has certainly been the case in Latin America. There, populism has often been an understandable reaction to hollowed-out, corrupt and exclusionary “democratic” systems. In Europe, many populist actors’ opposition to the European Union has effectively brought to light the “democratic deficit” at the heart of elite projects.</p>
<p>Populists can also offer effective critiques of the structural shortcomings and inefficiencies of democratic systems. Figures like Clive Palmer and Ross Perot have publicised the deficiency of political vision and lack of choice offered to voters in the Australian and US two-party systems. One of the key drivers of Beppe Grillo’s <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/giovanni-navarria/move-aside-now-its-up-to-us-italy%E2%80%99s-political-quake">MoVimento 5 Stelle</a> has been voters’ disaffection with the entire Italian political system. </p>
<p>In such environments, populists can shine a light on democratic systems not living up to their full potential and demand increased accountability of representatives to their constituents.</p>
<p>This is not to say that contemporary populism delivers on its promise to reclaim democracy from the elites by returning power to “the people”. It is impossible to ignore that populism’s foundational schema can too easily reduce complex political problems into simple solutions. These are just as – if not more – exclusive and undemocratic than the status quo.</p>
<h2>Anti-democratic tendencies</h2>
<p>Populism’s most problematic anti-democratic aspect is its strong inclination to target minorities and those labelled “others” as enemies of “the people”. </p>
<p>Populists’ invocation of “the people” relies on elevating one part of the community to the role of embodying the whole community. Consequently, those who do not fit into the category of “the people” are deemed illegitimate. So, while populist invocations of “the people” can sometimes open spaces for new democratic subjects, this inclusivity always comes at the price of the – sometimes virulent and violent – exclusion of the “other”.</p>
<p>This is most evident in the cases of radical right-wing populism – for example Hanson’s <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/1996/09/10/pauline-hanson-maiden-speech.html">targeting</a> of Asian immigrants, Wilders’ <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/30/geert-wilders-prophet-who-hates-muhammad-300266.html">war against Islam</a> and Marine Le Pen’s <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-french-front-national-leader-marine-le-pen-a-972925-2.html">hatred of migrants</a>. Yet even the “inclusive” populists mentioned earlier also demonstrate a worrying tendency to target their favoured “other”. Chávez allegedly withheld social insurance from those who offered political support to opposition parties and compared his enemies – such as then-US president George W. Bush – to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/world/americas/20cnd-chavez.html?_r=0">“devil”</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13891650">Thaksin</a> has been accused of intimidating the opposition, bullying non-governmental organisations, shutting down media outlets and even carrying out extra-judicial killings. </p>
<p>None of these actions can be considered democratic in the least.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78087/original/image-20150415-31678-644bqp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez revealed an authoritarian streak as he targeted his political enemies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Fernando Bizerra Jr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These undemocratic and antagonistic tactics are indicative of another dangerous tendency of populism. Its simple vision of politics is one of an ongoing war between “the people” and their enemies (“the elite” and associated “others”). </p>
<p>Unfortunately, populism’s view of “the people” as unified and homogenous simply does not square with the complex reality. The contemporary political landscape is criss-crossed by difference and heterogeneity. The flows of global capital, migration, cross-border and transnational bodies and identities have made political communities ever more diverse, and identities more complex. </p>
<p>As such, the nostalgic view of the unified “people” of the past – or what political scientist Paul Taggart <a href="http://aei.pitt.edu/2962/1/165.pdf">calls</a> the populist “heartland” – makes little sense.</p>
<p>Equally problematic is the populists’ tendency to offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. The basic logic behind Hanson’s calls for less immigration, Wilders’ calls to repatriate Muslims or even Chávez’s constant accusations of attacks from the US is this: remove or eradicate “the people’s” enemy and the problem will be solved. </p>
<p>Such scapegoating is not conducive to tackling the multifaceted and often international dimensions of the political, economic and cultural pressures facing political communities across the globe.</p>
<p>A last crucial anti-democratic tendency of populism is its drive towards extreme personalisation. Populism tends to rely on a strong charismatic leader to speak for, represent and embody the hopes, desires and voice of “the people”. This attitude is dangerous for democracy because by symbolically conflating a leader with an entire population, they become infallible. </p>
<p>Simply put, if the leader represents or embodies “the people’s” will, and “the people” are always right, then the leader is always right. Therefore, the granting of more power to the populist leader is not seen as a problem, as this is ultimately giving more power to “the people”.</p>
<p>Understandably, this trajectory worries many analysts of populism. A number of prominent populist actors have gone on to abuse their powers by utilising this logic to monopolise power and shift towards authoritarianism.</p>
<h2>The future</h2>
<p>So, what can we expect from populist movements today? Will they prove to be democratic or anti-democratic? Unsurprisingly, it is not that simple.</p>
<p>Populism can appear as a democratic force in some contexts and anti-democratic in others. Additionally, these tendencies are often simultaneously at play and in tension with one another. Populists can flaunt their democratic tendencies at the same time as undoing democratic guarantees.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the answer to the question of whether populism is democratic or not really depends on our view of what kind of democracy is best. Is it liberal democracy? If so, we probably see populism as problematic, given the targeting of minorities, the ignorance of procedures and the lack of acknowledgement of heterogeneity. </p>
<p>Or do we favour “radical” or “grassroots” democracy? In that case, we probably consider populism to be a democratic force, returning power to “the people” by removing it from the hands of “the elite” who never deserved their power in the first place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Moffitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The rise of left-wing populism challenges those who flatly denounced right-wing populism as undemocratic. Populism can appear as a democratic force in some contexts and anti-democratic in others.Benjamin Moffitt, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stockholm UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/393002015-04-07T20:15:54Z2015-04-07T20:15:54ZAustralians should learn from Canadians’ big census mistake<p>Canadians and Australians have a lot in common. We share a language, a rich history and presence of Aboriginal peoples, multicultural populations and increasingly ambiguous ties to our Commonwealth histories. We love our team sports and we don’t always agree with the Americans.</p>
<p>We have also prided ourselves on the ability to understand our populations and plan public services through reliably collected statistical data. Lamentably, in 2010, Canada’s federal government <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tories-scrap-mandatory-long-census-1.888048#ixzz0sMuHbAzo">eliminated its mandatory long-form census</a>, breaking what didn’t need fixing.</p>
<p>Now Australia is considering <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/census-not-as-useful-as-thought-australian-bureau-of-statistics-20150226-13pdga.html">changing the process</a> by which it collects census and health statistics. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-considers-axing-the-australian-census-to-save-money-20150219-13ieik.html">News coverage</a> points to some being in favour of moving to a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/leaders-reject-10-year-census/story-fn59niix-1227255743748">shorter, 10-year survey</a> in the hopes of saving costs and reducing the so-called data burden. </p>
<p>Before going down that road, we’d urge our friends down under to take a long hard look at the lessons of the Canadian experience.</p>
<h2>What has Canada lost?</h2>
<p>In Canada, the results of the decision to throw out the long-form census have been deeply discouraging. The voluntary <a href="http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-eng.cfm">National Household Survey</a> (NHS) that replaced it is deficient at best. </p>
<p>The response rate for the mandatory long-form version, issued every five years, <a href="http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/02/the-tragedy-of-canadas-census/385846/">was 93.5%</a>. The new NHS, which is shorter, voluntary, more expensive (ironically) and went to more people, had a response rate of <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.1217470">only 68.6%</a> in 2011. There was significantly lower participation from Canadians in mid-sized cities, small communities, rural areas, as well as from Aboriginal Canadians, immigrants and recipients of needs-based payments. </p>
<p>In other words, a wide array of information is being lost.</p>
<p>Canada’s national census dates to 1871. The data it gathered, initially in ten and then in five-year increments, was (and remains) vital to comparative, long-term understandings of where the country came from and where it is going. Census information is invaluable not only for governments, but for business, workers, researchers and communities at large.</p>
<p>Critiques of the “burden” of data collection are red herrings. Lost in debates about privacy or imagined cost reduction is that the census is about people. And data about people is central for building a healthier, safer, more equitable and prosperous country.</p>
<p>It enables governments to better plan key social and economic programs – such as Employment Insurance, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan in our case – and to properly target investments, from public transit and transportation infrastructure, to health care, social services and education. It enables business to be informed about the labour supply, education rates and demographic trends critical for marketing and hiring.</p>
<h2>Canadians no longer get to share their stories</h2>
<p>The census was also a fail-safe way for Canadians to share our stories. For example, Canadian social science researchers used long-form census data to compare income trends among immigrants and visible minorities, accommodating for place of birth, date of arrival and education level. They found significant gaps between newcomers and second-generation Canadians, and between men and women. </p>
<p>Researchers were also able to show complexities, such as how some immigrant groups fare better than others, and that men with only a high school education struggle to find well-paying jobs.</p>
<p>The resulting portrait of one’s country may not always be flattering, but knowing the hard – and sometimes surprising – facts about who you really are is the first step in smart policy-making.</p>
<p>Tough policy discussions about how to address poverty, labour shortfalls and build the country that citizens want must still take place. The data doesn’t prescribe a solution. But these debates and decisions mustn’t occur in a vacuum, which is where we are heading now in Canada. It’s like driving blind, and I don’t recommend it.</p>
<p>University of Toronto professor <a href="http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/hulchanski.html">David Hulchanski’s</a> urban poverty research <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/10/07/eyeopening_research_stopped_in_its_tracks_goar.html">came to a stop</a> when Canada eliminated the long-form census. Using data dating back to the 1970s, Hulchanski created a socio-economic map of Toronto in order to identify areas of poverty in relation to social service agency locations. What he found was that the two had become wildly out of sync.</p>
<p>Once prosperous neighbourhoods had declined, while the downtown core had been revitalised. Without census data, though, Hulchanski lacked the accurate statistical information he required to continue mapping the city and making future projections. He joined the growing chorus of critics.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h-9cTmhzZJ0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">David Hulchanski’s work identified critical social trends and divides, but the scrapping of the long-form census ended his study.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Make no mistake, Canadians take their data seriously. Canada’s Chief Statistician, Munir Sheikh, advised against scrapping the long-form census. He then <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/statistics-canada-chief-falls-on-sword-over-census/article1320915/">resigned</a> when his sound advice was misrepresented by the minister of the day. </p>
<p>A strong and wide-ranging consensus to restore the long-form census prevails still among Canada’s researchers, planners, business groups, NGOs, a diverse set of think-tanks and even our opposition parties. We had an #itmakescensus campaign. The unwillingness of the Canadian government to change its position remains disconcerting.</p>
<h2>Debate needed to shape a better census</h2>
<p>It must be hoped Australia can do better. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/project-archer-govts-plan-to-save-the-abs-20150226-13p84c.html">Reports</a> that changes within the Australian Bureau of Statistics might already be a “done deal” are cause for concern.</p>
<p>I’d urge a fulsome and considered debate among Australians. Discuss frequency, discuss ways to improve it if it’s needed, but do not sacrifice having a regularised, mandatory and substantive census.</p>
<p>Public and corporate decision-making will be increasingly based on inaccurate and incomplete data, which creates troubling evidence-free zones. This allows ideologues of all stripes free rein to define problems and solutions without a clear grasp of the challenges facing the country, or ability for informed democratic debate on the likely impact of different policy options on diverse populations.</p>
<p>Many Canadians hope we can restore the long-form census one day. But we’ve lost important stories in the interim. It’s not too late for Australia to allow its own census to go ahead as scheduled in 2016. Doing so will show the world Australia’s commitment to evidence-based decision-making and support for a dynamic knowledge society.</p>
<p>Canadians are delighted to have so much in common with our Australian cousins. But on this issue, we don’t set a good example.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39300/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Antonia Maioni is President of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. She receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and
Canadian Institutes for Health Research.</span></em></p>Before Australia proceeds with plans to devote fewer resources to a less frequent national census, we should consider the Canadian experience of what losing such rich data means.Antonia Maioni, Professor of Political Science, Health and Social Policy , McGill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378812015-03-16T19:15:56Z2015-03-16T19:15:56ZCanada and Australia share a political culture of conflict<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72863/original/image-20150224-32217-11c1ckl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australian and Canadian prime ministers Tony Abbott and Stephen Harper operate in political cultures where all-out warfare is now the norm.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Steve Christo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a recent book, political scientist Tom Flanagan <a href="http://www.utppublishing.com/Conservatism-in-Canada.html">argues</a> that the years of minority government in Canada between 2004 and 2011 had a corrosive effect on Canadian politics and political culture. He comments:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After so many years of continuous campaigning, federal politicians are like child soldiers in a war-torn African country; all they know how to do is to fire their AK-47s.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This statement, and many other things that Flanagan describes as features of Canadian politics – including increased centralisation of decision-making in the party and the need to be in constant campaign mode – could also be considered to be characteristics of contemporary Australian politics.</p>
<p>There can be little doubt that the years since 2007 have transformed the nature of Australian politics, turning it into a political warzone in which there can be no rest for the combatants. This came after some 24 years of relative political calm during which there were but three prime ministers – Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard.</p>
<p>These years of political stability owed a lot to politics not being all out-and-out warfare, even allowing for Keating’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKN4qWo7x1Y">occasional belligerence</a>. Governments on both sides of politics ruled for what they understood to be the public good, not just to secure victory over the other side.</p>
<p>When the Australian electorate voted in the Labor government led by Kevin Rudd in 2007 they had an expectation that this pattern of politics would continue. They saw Rudd as continuing the tradition of good government that Australia had enjoyed since 1983.</p>
<p>Instead, the Australian people were soon to enter the zone of conflict and instability, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-left-deeply-wounded-by-narrow-victory-37339">still the case</a>. One could blame this on the challenges that governments have had to face since the global financial crisis. But then the Hawke government faced <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/How-the-recession-we-had-to-have-built-a-decade-of-prosperity/2005/02/08/1107625210623.html">enormous challenges</a> in the late 1980s without descending into anything like its successor 20 years later.</p>
<p>There were many factors at work, including <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-tragedy-of-kevin-rudd-can-be-traced-to-a-personality-flaw/story-e6frg74x-1227033724468">Rudd’s leadership style</a>, the way in which he was <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/national/kill_kevin_the_untold_story_of_coup_cZPfd14BXwPurp6V65gM4N">dispatched and replaced</a> by Julia Gillard, and the consequences of having a hung parliament from 2010. The result was a much more <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-out-war-the-year-that-was-in-australian-politics-11124">ferocious style</a> of politics. It was ferocious in the conflict both between the parties and within the parties as the struggle for power became increasingly intense.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72881/original/image-20150224-32232-1463287.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian politics has recently been marked by ferocious conflict both between and within parties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What happened was that a political “state of nature” replaced what had been the civilised practice of political life in Australia. One of the great virtues of the Westminster system, which Australia, like Canada, has inherited from Britain, are its traditions of political behaviour, of behaving <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120590">reasonably and decently</a>.</p>
<p>Those traditions have been significantly eroded in recent years. One reason for this has been the need to be in constant campaign mode. Flanagan writes that the Conservative Party in Canada is a “campaign party”, always looking to the next election. The same is true of both main political parties in Australia.</p>
<p>All of this is exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle and the use of social media. There can be no rest for any government; skirmishes are always being fought as parties prepare to “go over the top” for the next big offensive.</p>
<p>What this means is that the job of governing the country is almost of lesser importance than winning the political battle. Rather, government is just another tool or weapon to be used in that battle.</p>
<p>The real problem, as Flanagan says, is the harmful effect that such behaviour has had on the political culture. What Australians want is what they had under Hawke and Howard: good, strong, stable government. What they are getting is constant political warfare.</p>
<p>The problem is that young newcomers to politics are being inducted into this dysfunctional political culture. They are learning how to become political warriors dedicated to winning the political game. And winning is the top – perhaps only – priority.</p>
<p>The danger is that this culture of constant conflict will becoming self-perpetuating. Politicians will forget why the Australian people have elected them. There needs to be some way of breaking this cycle of conflict and returning Australians to the days of good government that they enjoyed under Hawke, Keating and Howard.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37881/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Melleuish receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the academic Advisory Board of the Menzies Research Centre.</span></em></p>In recent years, a political “state of nature” has replaced what had been the civilised practice of political life in Australia.Gregory Melleuish, Associate Professor, School of History and Politics, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/387722015-03-16T03:14:55Z2015-03-16T03:14:55ZWhy Clive Palmer’s personal party is doomed to end in tears<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74876/original/image-20150316-7054-1l14m0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Like Italian politician Silvio Berlusconi (right), PUP leader Clive Palmer heads up what can be termed a 'personal' party.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/EPA/Alan Porritt/Angelo Carconi </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To nobody’s great surprise, it turns out that the Palmer United Party (PUP) is much more “Palmer” than it is “United”. With Glenn Lazarus’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/palmer-bought-his-clout-but-his-investment-couldnt-ensure-loyalty-38793">resignation</a> late last week, PUP has gone in less than a year from having three senators – and an alliance with a fourth, Ricky Muir – to just one. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-24/tasmanian-senator-jacqui-lambie-quits-pup/5913136">Jacqui Lambie</a> and Lazarus’ departures have not only stripped Clive Palmer of most of his influence in parliament, but raised the question of whether PUP will even make it to the next federal election.</p>
<p>When Palmer first emerged, I wondered to what extent his leadership style and new career would be similar to those of other rich businesspeople in Western democracies who have entered politics with parties made in their own images. These include the likes of <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/frank-stronach-stirs-up-austrian-politics-with-new-party-a-885810-2.html">Frank Stronach</a> in Austria, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/world/europe/polands-palikot-movement-signals-a-changing-society.html?pagewanted=all">Janusz Palikot</a> in Poland, <a href="http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/09/czech-elections-how-a-billionaire-populist-upstaged-established-parties/">Andrej Babiš</a> in the Czech Republic and the most successful such leader to date, <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-the-end-of-berlusconi-right-probably-yes-16647">Silvio Berlusconi</a> in Italy.</p>
<p>Most of these leaders have created “personal parties”. As I wrote in a 2013 Political Studies <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01007.x/abstract">article</a> about Berlusconi, these are parties that fulfil four main criteria: </p>
<ol>
<li>The party’s expected lifespan is seen – even by the majority of those within it – as dependent on the political lifespan of the founder-leader;</li>
<li>Organisation at local level is neither constantly manifest nor permanent;</li>
<li>The party’s image and campaign strategies are centred on the founder-leader; and</li>
<li>The leader wields an extremely high degree of formal and/or informal power.</li>
</ol>
<p>PUP appears to meet all these conditions. Those who have left PUP <a href="http://www.alex4gaven.com.au/5239/statement-by-dr-alex-douglas-at-todays-media-conference/">have spoken</a> of it being totally dominated by Palmer. They have described him as having no desire to either set up any kind of lasting state structures or to involve grassroots members. </p>
<p>Like Berlusconi’s parties, PUP inflates at campaign time and deflates afterwards. And, again like Berlusconi’s parties, the leader’s image is central to PUP’s communication strategies, even in state campaigns where Palmer is not actually a candidate – just as Berlusconi has dominated <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/15829868">regional election campaigns</a> in Italy.</p>
<p>Not only do Palmer and Berlusconi both lead “personal parties”, but we might say that they both lead “plutocrat parties”. Both men have used their enormous wealth to bankroll their political creations. In Palmer’s case, this outlay amounted to more than <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clive-palmers-businesses-donated-around-26-million-to-the-palmer-united-party-electoral-campaign-2015-2">A$25 million</a> according to the party’s 2013-14 accounts. In Berlusconi’s, it has been estimated – very conservatively – at around <a href="http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2014/maggio/30/Berlusconi_vent_anni_milioni_euro_co_0_20140530_a9170ffa-e7bd-11e3-9b17-ec0f356de486.shtml">100 million euros</a>. </p>
<p>Also, both Berlusconi and Palmer created their own parties when – for very different reasons – they lost their key political friends. In Berlusconi’s case, the Italian Socialist Party (which he had generously supported) collapsed in the early 1990s, thus depriving his business empire of a crucial governmental ally. In Palmer’s case, the correlation between his <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-22/palmer-quits-lnp/4387444">dispute</a> with the Liberal National Party in Queensland (which he too had generously supported) and his entry into politics looks more than mere coincidence.</p>
<p>However, that is where the similarities end. While Berlusconi has shown himself to be adept at transferring business organisational and marketing skills to politics, Palmer has appeared completely out of his depth in this sense. Berlusconi’s party communications, especially in the early years, were more professional and slicker than anything Italian politics had seen before. Palmer’s have simply looked amateur and cheap.</p>
<p>Take PUP’s <a href="http://palmerunited.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Palmer-United-Party-National-Policy-16MAY2013.pdf">main policy document</a> from 2013. Apart from its five key policies at the beginning, most of the document was <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/palmer8217s-party-copies-lib-platform/story-fncynjr2-1226652571476">copied word-for-word</a> from a Liberal Party platform. For example, if you compare page six of PUP’s policy statement about what it “believes”, you’ll find it is almost identical to what the <a href="http://canberraliberals.org.au/about-us/our-beliefs/">Liberals believed</a>.</p>
<p>Palmer’s electoral strategies have also smacked of naivety and amateurism. Unless a new party has massive resources not only in terms of money but also personnel (in central office and on the ground), it does not make sense to run in every lower house constituency at its first national election – as PUP did in 2013. </p>
<p>Although this does give more visibility to the party, it also means wasting a lot of precious time on candidates who have no idea what they are doing and no hope of winning seats. Targeting a smaller handful of seats is usually more effective.</p>
<p>As for the state level, not only has PUP performed well below its own expectations at elections in Tasmania, Victoria and – most notably – Palmer’s home state of Queensland, but it <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clive-palmers-party-misses-deadline-to-register-for-nsw-election-20140401-35wgj.html">failed to register</a> in time for the upcoming New South Wales state election. This is hardly the level of organisational skills you expect from a party run by someone who has had such a successful career in business.</p>
<p>Lazarus’ departure thus seems entirely in line with PUP’s haphazard history. Put simply, you do not <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/palmer-united-party-official-claims-glenn-lazarus-quit-after-wife-tess-was-sacked-20150313-142u1d.html">sack the wife</a> of one of your two remaining senators. Palmer has since <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/lazarus-exit-from-palmer-united-party-does-not-change-senate-task-abbott/story-fn59niix-1227261146008">said</a> that he is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… confident at the next election our team will be stronger, tougher and, more importantly, committed to what we stand for.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I very much doubt there will be a “next election”. As businessmen in politics go, Clive is beginning to resemble <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/the-downfall-of-kim-dotcom/">Kim Dotcom</a> – whose momentum in New Zealand politics quickly flamed out – far more than he does Berlusconi.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Duncan McDonnell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While Silvio Berlusconi has shown himself to be adept at transferring business organisational and marketing skills to politics, Clive Palmer has appeared completely out of his depth in this sense.Duncan McDonnell, Senior Lecturer, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314682015-02-25T01:59:56Z2015-02-25T01:59:56ZThe battle for middle Ireland and Australia over marriage equality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72754/original/image-20150223-32238-5zrfst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The march towards equal marriage rights in Ireland is well ahead of Australia, yet the level of public support in each nation is remarkably similar.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/infomatique/5870696073/in/photolist-7nuAXx-7mJdtr-XWUFP-fyuNmc-6FeYcs-WSNko-WPbya-9WPhBL-9WLRpP-9WPytu-9WPFf5-9WP8ZU-9WLEd4-9WPf9d-7jQ63B-83QsDC-oPiKa2-3eGXcj-7mPUsT-p4LE53">William Murphy/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In less than three months Ireland will vote on whether to allow marriage equality – and <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-countdown-begins-1.2073120">opinion polls</a> suggest that the once staunchly Catholic nation may be ready to vote yes.</p>
<p>But that result is not guaranteed; even now, <a href="http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/one-fifth-still-undecided-on-same-sex-marriage-30993056.html">a fifth of people</a> remain undecided about marriage equality. The battle for “middle Ireland” is on. </p>
<p>This makes it even more remarkable that – in stark contrast to Australia or the United States – every one of Ireland’s major political parties has come out in favour of a yes vote in the referendum.</p>
<p>So how has Ireland got to the brink of allowing marriage equality? And what are the lessons for marriage equality supporters elsewhere, including in Australia?</p>
<h2>What the referendum is about</h2>
<p>The referendum will be held <a href="http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/Date-set-for-Irelands-same-sex-marriage-referendum.html">on May 22</a>, with the result announced the following day – conveniently the day of the Eurovision, fondly nicknamed by some as the <a href="http://issue6.dandymagazine.com.au/pridepolitics-gaychristmas/">“Gay Christmas”</a>.</p>
<p>Last month, the Irish government released <a href="http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR15000009">the wording</a> that people will be voting yes or no to, which is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The referendum follows on from Ireland’s introduction of civil partnerships in <a href="http://www.glen.ie/page.aspx?contentid=672">January 2011</a>. Campaigners for civil marriage have argued that there are <a href="http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list">160 statutory differences</a> between civil partnership and marriage, mainly in the areas of taxation, children and adoption.</p>
<p>The most pressing of those issues involves adoption rights for same-sex couples. This will be addressed separately in the <a href="http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR15000041">Children and Family Relationships Bill</a>, which was published mid-February.</p>
<h2>The case for and against</h2>
<p>Even though the referendum is not about parental rights, the debate about it has so far largely focused on children and defending the traditional view of marriage. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ionainstitute.ie/">Iona Institute</a> for religion and society, a socially conservative Catholic advocacy group, has outlined its argument for sticking with “man-woman marriage” only, “for the sake of the children”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zaRK-0W5HQI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Vote no: the Case for Man/Woman Marriage, by the Iona Institute.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72883/original/image-20150224-32238-kj3ve0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A longer 14-point version of this leaflet makes even more detailed claims about ‘active homosexual persons’ dying young and abusing children.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alliance for the Family and Marriage</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another group, known as the <a href="http://www.adfam.ie/">Alliance for the Family and Marriage</a>, has been criticised for handing out <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/leaflet-distributed-in-dublin-claims-gay-people-contract-cancers-earlier-in-life-10062174.html">leaflets with unsubstantiated claims</a> about “active homosexual persons” contracting cancer, dying 20 years sooner than average and <a href="http://www.adfam.ie/sites/default/files/Why%20It%20Isn%E2%80%99t%20Compassionate%20to%20Vote%20for%20Same.pdf">abusing</a> their own children.</p>
<p>Of course, in all good referendum campaigns the alternative viewpoint has to be made available. In Ireland, the <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bai-ruling-on-marriage-equality-comments-stifles-ongoing-debate-1.2029836">Broadcasting Authority of Ireland </a> requires that there is a balance of viewpoints. </p>
<p>So along with the case for the no vote, Irish voters have been watching videos like this one, which argues against the points made in the Iona Institute video.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wopoEJxFYQw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Vote yes: a parody of Man/Woman video, entitled The Case for Mammy/Daddy Marriage.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Wooing middle Ireland</h2>
<p>Both sides of the debate agree that the referendum will be won by whoever does the best job of convincing “middle Ireland”.</p>
<p>All the major political parties – Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin – are campaigning for a yes vote.</p>
<p>This is a remarkable shift, particularly for the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties, which have historically been more conservative on social issues. </p>
<p>Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach (prime minister) and leader of the Fine Gael party, had previously insisted he did not want to be “<a href="http://www.thejournal.ie/video-enda-kenny-gay-marriage-same-sex-marriage-micheal-martin-referendum-constitutional-convention-516056-Jul2012/">pressurised on marriage equality</a>”.</p>
<p>But Kenny has since talked about his own “personal journey” and is now <a href="http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-same-sex-marriage-1845525-Jan2015/">campaigning strongly for a yes vote</a>, declaring last month: “I think it is time to do this so it’s a people’s choice.”</p>
<p>Kenny became the first Taoiseach to visit a gay bar in December 2014, attending his party’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans group’s Christmas celebration, the significance of which <a href="http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/kenny-goes-to-panti-bar-for-xmas-party-30793946.html">cannot be overlooked</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"539897414254342144"}"></div></p>
<p>Added to this journey has been the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/pat-carey-ireland-gay-_n_6678652.html">coming out</a> of current and former members of parliament. Most notable of these has been Health Minister <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/18/leo-varadkar-ireland-first-openly-gay-minister">Leo Varadkar</a>, who is touted as a future leader of the Fine Gael party.</p>
<p>Last weekend, the majority governing party Fine Gael held its annual conference in rural Ireland. Speaking on February 21, the Taoiseach delivered a clear message on the referendum, declaring: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A yes vote would send out a powerful signal internationally that Ireland has evolved into a fair, compassionate and tolerant nation.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cR7Zst4LC5s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Enda Kenny on Marriage Equality - Fine Gael National Conference 2015.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What about Australia?</h2>
<p>The shift in Irish politics is in sharp contrast to the situation in Australia. </p>
<p>In June 2014, Australian Marriage Equality commissioned Crosby Textor – the main research firm <a href="https://theconversation.com/inside-operation-boring-the-lnps-strategy-to-reclaim-queensland-36146">used by the Liberal Party</a> over many years – to survey 1000 Australians on their views about marriage equality.</p>
<p>Crosby Textor’s <a href="http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/crosby-textor-same-sex-marriage-research-2014/">polling</a> showed support for marriage equality had reached a new high of 72% of those surveyed. The survey also found majority support in every demographic, including people of faith, people in regional and rural areas and older people.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72872/original/image-20150224-32209-1ewls9n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=560&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tracking public support and opposition to marriage equality in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Crosby Textor polling, commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A renewed push to allow same-sex marriage in Australia began this month, with a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-federal-mps-targeted-in-new-phone-campaign-20150216-13gcg6.html">phone campaign</a> targeting federal MPs. But deep divisions remain on both sides of the parliament.</p>
<p>Beyond the well-known difference of opinion between Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (in favour of the status quo) and his colleague Malcolm Turnbull (in favour of change), National Party MPs have reportedly said they would require a “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nationals-would-rein-turnbulls-progressive-instincts/story-fn59niix-1227209730141">written guarantee</a>” that Turnbull wouldn’t pursue same-sex marriage if he topples Abbott as Liberal leader.</p>
<p>Late last year, Labor leader <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-tells-christian-lobby-he-supports-samesex-marriage-20141025-11bool.html">Bill Shorten declared</a> to the Australian Christian Lobby’s national conference that “I believe in God and I believe in marriage equality”.</p>
<p>But not everyone in Labor shares Shorten’s view. Last year it emerged that Western Australian Labor senator <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/i-dont-always-vote-alp-says-nonbsp1-wa-labor-candidate-joe-bullock/story-fn59noo3-1226873964147?login=1">Joe Bullock</a> had attacked his ALP running-mate Louise Pratt as a “poster child” for causes such as gay marriage at a dinner organised by a Christian society. He also said he’d be willing to be expelled from Labor rather than vote for same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>This issue is not going to go away in Australia. Liberal Democratic Party senator David Leyonhjelm is pushing for a conscience vote, arguing “it’s not the government’s business to be telling people who they can and can’t marry”. Leyonhjelm said <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/06/david-leyonhjelm-push-abbott-marriage-equality">earlier this month</a> that he may block government legislation until a free vote is granted, ideally before the May budget.</p>
<p>That means Ireland is not the only country counting down to a May deadline.</p>
<p>Polls show the level of support for equal marriage rights in Ireland and Australia is remarkably similar: <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-referendum-countdown-begins-1.2073120">71%</a> in Ireland and <a href="http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/crosby-textor-same-sex-marriage-research-2014/">72%</a> in Australia.</p>
<p>What middle Ireland and middle Australia say about this issue is not so different after all. Instead, the key difference between the countries is that in Australia politicians supposedly elected to represent the will of the people are choosing not to listen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31468/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Éidín Ní Shé does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Support for equal marriage rights in Ireland and Australia is remarkably similar: 71% in Ireland and 72% in Australia. The key difference is that Australian politicians are choosing not to listen.Éidín Ní Shé, Research Officer, Centre for Local Government , University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/346522014-12-02T19:21:54Z2014-12-02T19:21:54ZClass warfare: would Shorten pass the test that Ed Miliband failed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65420/original/image-20141125-8651-5pvcgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Labor Party that Bill Shorten leads is much more professionalised in its MP make-up than its earlier incarnations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For British Labour leader Ed Miliband, defeat was yet again snatched from the jaws of victory. With the UK general election less than six months away, the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/ukip-wins-in-rochester-and-strood-where-biggest-contest-was-for-the-wooden-spoon-34505">Rochester and Strood by-election</a> was a key test for Labour. But with one tweet, shadow attorney-general Emily Thornberry was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/emily-thornberry-resigns-rochester-tweet-labour-shadow-cabinet">forced to resign</a> and hand momentum to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which placed even greater pressure on Miliband. </p>
<p>During the by-election, Thornberry tweeted – with no comment – a photo of a house with three St George’s flags, with a white van parked outside. The message was seen as an unambiguous sneer at white, working-class Britain.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"535450556199075840"}"></div></p>
<p>Cue media mayhem, and a Labour Party close to being at <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/22/labour-war-emily-thornberry-tweet-rochester-strood">civil war</a>. </p>
<p>A significant part of this story is the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/mar/08/european-left-fragmenting-david-miliband">growing disaffection</a> of working-class Britain from the mainstream parties. This remains an acute problem for centre-left parties. In general, the MPs and membership of most Labour and centre-left parties around the world are becoming <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2886170">increasingly “gentrified”</a>.</p>
<p>When Miliband was asked what he thought when he saw a house like the one tweeted, he <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11245673/Ed-Miliband-I-feel-respect-whenever-I-see-a-white-van.html">replied</a>: “Respect” – and was widely mocked online. Miliband <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/22/labour-rebut-claims-party-out-of-touch-working-class-voters">is seen</a> as part of an affluent middle-class elite, who talks to, rather than speaks for, working-class people.</p>
<p>The problems afflicting UK Labour raises the question about whether or not the Australian Labor Party – politically a kissing cousin of UK Labour – could survive an equivalent “class” test here. How “in touch” are ALP leader Bill Shorten and his frontbench with the working class? </p>
<p>It is striking that of Shorten’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Parliamentary_Handbook/Shadow">30-member</a> shadow ministry, only three (Claire Moore, Kate Ellis and Doug Cameron) do not hold some form of tertiary qualification. As the Labor Party has become more professionalised – along with the expansion of university education under the Whitlam government – its composition has changed. </p>
<p>In contrast to Shorten’s frontbench, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fisher_Ministry">first cabinet</a> in 1908 of Andrew Fisher, the first ALP prime minister, included two former miners (Josiah Thomas and Fisher himself), a carpenter (George Pearce), an engine fitter (Lee Batchelor), a former apprenticed compositor (James Hutchison), a ship-builder (Gregor McGregor), a milliner (Frank Tudor) and perhaps an asset modern Labor might appreciate in Hugh Mahon – a former newspaper owner.</p>
<p>It may be fair that a professionalised frontbench has a skill set we might realistically expect of our pre-eminent lawmakers. And the ALP (and UK Labour) frontbench is certainly closer to the working population than the UK coalition cabinet, which in 2010 <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m--Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html">comprised</a> 23 millionaires out of its 29 members.</p>
<p>But while they might be skilled legislators – or policy wonks like Andrew Leigh – MPs also have a representative role. That invariably means talking the language of the public and understanding – if not shaping – their concerns. And the issue is that the long-standing links between Labor parties worldwide and the working class have been diluted. </p>
<p>While a number of the ALP frontbench come from working-class backgrounds, the overriding impression is of a group of articulate, mostly clever, middle-class professionals. This is problematic when you consider that – as noted by Owen Jones in his book <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jun/08/chavs-demonization-owen-jones-review">Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class</a> – there is a long-standing tradition of sneering from political elites, including British Labour. </p>
<p>Questions of leadership also arise. Previous ALP leaders like Fisher and James Scullin – a grocer – were arguably more grounded in the lives of working-class people around them. However, Fisher, a <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Trk5tp1OlggC&pg=PA516&lpg=PA516&dq=andrew+fisher+underestimated+man&source=bl&ots=WHC58reod6&sig=OaMiWBckHc3cD0iEDhk4l09T01c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QE11VKWlAYLPmwW2v4L4Bw&ved=0CF8Q6AEwDw#v=onepage&q&f=false">non-drinker</a>, was probably more culturally out of touch than, say, Bob Hawke, the unambiguous larrikin.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65571/original/image-20141126-4244-78maeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard spent a week in western Sydney in an attempt to ‘connect’ with voters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>More recently, under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, the policy record and relationship between the party and the working class are both mixed. Rudd, the social democrat, was more popular, but the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/2020-vision-rudd-summit-to-map-future/2008/02/03/1201973740462.html">2020 Summit</a> was a middle-class safety valve to let off steam from the Howard era. Arguably, Gillard’s greatest policy achievements for “working people” were <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-10/gillard-reveals-carbon-price-scheme/2788842">trebling the tax-free threshold</a> and the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/big-rises-awarded-to-social-and-community-sector-workers-in-equal-pay-ruling/story-fn59noo3-1226259398301">pay award</a> to community sector workers. Yet neither was widely recognised. </p>
<p>These were certainly more long-lasting achievements than Gillard’s notable <a href="https://theconversation.com/gillard-tells-aspirational-westies-they-are-top-shelf-12582">week’s residency</a> in western Sydney in early 2013. This was a symbolic gesture that ironically reinforced her distance from the working class.</p>
<p>On cultural issues, Gillard’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxn0R5cnHA">intransigence</a> on same-sex marriage might have <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/gay-marriage-pm-to-save-face-20111201-1o9by.html">appeased</a> the ALP’s right faction, but this neither reflects the cross-class <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-growing-support-for-samesex-marriage-20140714-3bxaj.html">support</a> for the issue, nor the diversity of blue-collar workers – who are often assumed to be more culturally conservative <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/gay-rights-and-gay-wrongs">on this issue</a>.</p>
<p>And would Shorten himself pass a “bogan” test – and be able to articulate the language of the working class? The signs are mixed. His union background is an asset, but he is still <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-the-party-faithful-drift-away-can-bill-shorten-reinvent-labor-31098">largely seen</a> as a “machine man”, lacking authenticity. But his time as parliamentary secretary for disability and children’s services seems to have been a formative experience: he was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/from-welfare-to-work-bill-shortens-disability-plan/story-fn59noo3-1226733883160">instrumental</a> in championing the National Disability Insurance Scheme. </p>
<p>Overall, the ALP might rightly claim that it can articulate new economic policies for the interests of the working class. But, culturally, this gap might well be growing. </p>
<p>If there is a lesson for the ALP from the Rochester and Strood by-election disaster of its UK counterparts, then it is that its frontbench may need more than the ubiquitous photos of MPs in hard-hats. The party – rightly – sets <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ElectoralQuotas#_Toc372193127">gender quotas</a> for its MPs. Perhaps it should do the same for the working class.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Manwaring does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For British Labour leader Ed Miliband, defeat was yet again snatched from the jaws of victory. With the UK general election less than six months away, the recent Rochester and Strood by-election was a…Rob Manwaring, Lecturer, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/273142014-06-03T04:00:19Z2014-06-03T04:00:19ZWhat Farage and UKIP could learn from the One Nation experience<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49970/original/jqgpydzp-1401688917.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C118%2C3154%2C2068&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nigel Farage and UKIP are faced with a political dilemma – whether to become 'insiders' in Westminster or remain 'outsiders', criticising the key political actors.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage now has a problem. In the wake of his <a href="https://theconversation.com/eu-election-is-ukip-a-political-earthquake-or-just-a-tremor-26675">party’s success</a> in the recent European Parliament election, Farage and his UKIP colleagues need to determine how best to maintain their momentum. The logical progression is to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27572007">consolidate this success</a> at the next UK general election in May 2015.</p>
<p>However, UKIP forcing its way into Westminster will be neither easy nor necessarily a good idea.</p>
<p>The biggest loser in the recent European elections was arguably <a href="http://english.cntv.cn/2014/05/27/ARTI1401150768634513.shtml">British prime minister David Cameron</a>. Admittedly, Britain’s deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrats leader, Nick Clegg, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/european-elections-nick-clegg-close-to-tears_n_5392687.html">fared worse</a>, but his position has been increasingly untenable for some time.</p>
<p>Cameron, too, has a problem: how to respond to the threat on his right. Even before the elections, some of the more vocal Eurosceptics – comprising about one-third of the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/civil-war-erupts-amongst-tory-eurosceptics-as-the-moderate-fresh-start-group-attacks-95-mps-who-wrote-to-cameron-demanding-vetos-9062281.html">parliamentary Conservative Party</a> – were calling for an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/23/tories-no-ukip-pact">electoral pact</a> with Farage. </p>
<p>The concession of a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge">referendum</a> on British membership of the European Union if the Conservatives return to power was widely seen as a victory for the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives, itself driven by fear of a rise in support for UKIP. </p>
<p>We’ve seen something like this before in Australia, which may serve as an important source of inspiration for the political actors in Britain.</p>
<p>In Australia, a small, populist party with a charismatic leader made a significant impact on the shape of national politics in the 1990s. Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party appeared to be an irresistible political force when they threatened to steal rural and regional voters from the Liberal-National Party Coalition government. Hanson herself was a disendorsed Liberal Party candidate.</p>
<p>Similar to the contemporary populist parties in Europe, One Nation was highly critical of the social and economic policies of successive governments. Of critical concern was the sense that “average” citizens had been marginalised in the political debate and that the established pattern of domination by the major parties was somehow “broken”. </p>
<p>At the core of One Nation’s appeal, however, was Hanson’s charisma and <a href="http://museumvictoria.com.au/immigrationmuseum/discoverycentre/identity/videos/politics-videos/pauline-hansons-1996-maiden-speech-to-federal-parliament/">her focus</a> on issues of race and immigration. </p>
<p>The electoral threat that One Nation posed to the right-of-centre Coalition was significant. In Queensland’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Queensland_state_election">1998 state election</a>, 22.68% of voters gave their first preference to One Nation. The party won 11 seats in the state parliament.</p>
<p>The Coalition, seeing the very real threat One Nation posed to its electoral fortunes, was caught in a difficult bind and appeared unable to stop the party’s rising popularity within its own constituency. Then-prime minister John Howard avoided <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/media-unfair-to-pauline-hanson-says-john-howard/story-e6frfku0-1225757979730">directly engaging with Hanson</a> and was criticised for not immediately rebuking her policy agenda. </p>
<p>In an attempt to thwart the emerging threat, the Coalition followed Labor’s lead in placing One Nation last in the preference deals at the federal election held later in 1998. This meant the party could only win one Senate spot in Queensland and Hanson was unable to retain her lower house seat.</p>
<p>Despite its spectacular emergence, One Nation quickly imploded and vanished from the political scene. By the 2001 election, One Nation had become a marginal player in federal politics and by 2004 it was out of the Senate. </p>
<p>One Nation’s main problems seemed to come from a couple of areas. First, the party’s unusual organisational structures led to internal power struggles. This caused many members to leave the party, especially once they felt superfluous to its operations.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1149&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1149&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49976/original/4nc3zspw-1401691509.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1149&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pauline Hanson’s charisma and focus on immigration was at the core of One Nation’s appeal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second – and more applicable to UKIP – One Nation did not effectively make the transition from criticising the established political institutions as “outsiders” to becoming political “insiders” with parliamentary representation. The party appeared to be unable to effectively use its Senate representation to advance its agenda in parliament. </p>
<p>One Nation did have some impact on the Howard government’s policies. The government appeared to incorporate some elements of One Nation’s thinking, especially on immigration in 2001 when Howard <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrJ1mMPpVuQ">famously declared</a> that the Australian government would:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Howard government also abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission in 2005 and appeared to be <a href="http://press.anu.edu.au//apps/bookworm/view/JULIA+2010:+The+caretaker+election/8291/Text/ch20.html">far more wary</a> of rural and regional policy concerns. Even after nearly two decades, commentators <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/enduring-legacy-of-pauline-hanson">still attribute</a> some federal government decisions to One Nation’s enduring political legacy.</p>
<p>For Cameron, gaining the electoral ground his party appears to have lost to UKIP may be made easier by the presence of Lynton Crosby as the Conservatives’ <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-2619772/Forget-Dave-Lynton-Crosby-wholl-win-Tories.html">election director</a>. Crosby, described as the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4000439.stm">“master of the dark political arts”</a>, served as the Liberal Party’s campaign director for each of Howard’s four election victories.</p>
<p>It may just be that victory in the European elections is the best of all possible worlds for UKIP. It gives them the visibility, voice and opportunity to influence British politics without the strains that will be revealed by the transition from Strasbourg to Westminster. </p>
<p>Becoming an “insider” in Westminster may well be the undoing of UKIP. Perhaps Farage should consider calling Hanson before committing to storm Westminster’s gates.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage now has a problem. In the wake of his party’s success in the recent European Parliament election, Farage and his UKIP colleagues need to determine how best…Ben Wellings, Lecturer in European Studies, Monash UniversityZareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.