Why the Teals Are Bad For Our Democracy

There is a broad consensus emerging that our two party system is on the way out and that this is a good thing. The thinking goes that independents are not bound by party discipline and are therefore better able to represent the views and interests of their electorates. A more politically diverse range of voices will surely make for better debate in parliament and the need for major parties to negotiate and compromise will lead to better policy outcomes.

These benefits seem obvious, but what are not so obvious are the substantial advantages of the two-party system that we stand to lose. But before making that case, I must make one important point: the gradual decline of Labor and Liberal membership and primary vote has happened for a reason, and unless we change it will continue. The ideological fault lines that delineate the political landscape are prone to shifts, often sudden ones. No party’s future is guaranteed. The old Liberal/Labor divide has narrowed, and contrary to the claims of some commentators, this is owing more to Labor changing than us. Declining unionism and Labor’s embrace of neo-liberal economic policies has eroded two of their key differentiators. Today Labor and Liberal offer essentially two competing versions of the same product, and it’s a product fewer people are buying. And it’s no wonder - for most Australians, here’s what the major parties offer: a cowardly politics driven by polls and focus groups. Policy agendas set by vested interests, lobbyists and donors. Profligate spending of taxpayer funds on jobs for mates and pork barrelling. Instead of the contest of ideas we have a vote-buying contest. Instead of statesmen we have salesmen, and when a company focuses on sales at the expense of the quality of their product, they’re sure to be disrupted.

Having said all this, I think it is essential that we reverse this trend and reinvigorate the two-party system because the alternative is much worse, for three main reasons:

The first reason is that with the two-party system, voters get what they pay for. They can be confident that the platform the party takes to an election will be in large part enacted - not so with a minority government. In a minority government, only after substantial negotiation can voters know what will be kept and what will be compromised. There is a place for compromise in politics - but better a compromise of diverse views within a party that is then presented to the electorate to vote on, than a flurry of post-election horse-trading.

Secondly, minority government interrupts the Darwinian forces that enable good governments to flourish and bad ones to die off. With no party able to substantially enact their policy agenda, there can be less credit for success and liability attributed for failure - it becomes harder for the electorate to find someone to blame or reward. Instead you get loose, dysfunctional coalitions like we see in Israel today.

Thirdly, the Westminster system of government -  the most successful form of democracy in history, has been specifically designed to operate on a two party basis, where power is alternated - not shared. If two people are in a car and both want to drive, it would be ridiculous to let them both hold the wheel - the car would either crash or go nowhere. Better they alternate, and if one gets lost, the other takes over.

The rise of the teals and minor parties is a result of well-founded public disillusionment with the major parties, but it will be worse for our country if it continues. As Liberals, our great failure has been that the teal candidates - all impressive women who share many of our values, wanted to run against us instead of for us.

So what do we do about it? First and foremost we must preselect better candidates as I have argued in my Open Letter to Preselectors. In order to attract better preselection candidates in the first place we need to change the culture of the party: we should foster and encourage free thinking, open debate and intellectual excellence. If we want the best and brightest to join our party, ours needs to be the party for smart people. If we want more salesmen, we should continue to outsource our thinking to partisan think tanks. We also need incentives - the chance to attend state council or man a polling booth is not a strong incentive. A strong incentive would be an opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations on important topics with like-minded people, or contribute to policy development. Finally, we need to put an end to the ludicrous time commitment that is now expected of prospective candidates first to canvas for preselection and then to start campaigning a year out from an election. This strategy may well give candidates a slight edge on polling day but it comes at the cost of deterring successful people with busy lives who don’t want to be out door-knocking multiple times a week for a year. The sensible thing would be to hold preselections 3-6 months out from election day, and leave only 2 weeks for preselection canvassing.

The fault lines of our political landscape are changing. It would not take much for a major party to crumble - a charismatic leader, a divisive new issue. It happened to the United Australia Party, it happened to the UK Liberal Party. Reform UK has gone from nothing to having more members than the Conservative Party. We must adapt or perish.