Once upon a time, nearly everybody voted for the major parties. In 1975, after the collapse of the DLP and before the rise of the Democrats, 95.9% gave their primary vote in the House of Representatives to either Labor or the Coalition. That figure was still well above 90% as late as 1987.
Then things started to happen. In 1998, with One Nation, the Democrats and the Greens all in the field, the major party vote fell to 79.6% – the second lowest in history, and the only time it’s been below 80% since 1934. As One Nation dwindled it rose again, reaching 85.5% in 2007, but now it’s back down. On the latest figures (which will change, but only slightly, with postals) Labor has 38.5% and the various components of the Coalition between them have 43.5%, for a total of just 82%.
That’s not the only sign of discontent with the mainstream offerings. The informal vote was 5.6%, up by about a third from 2007 (who knew Mark Latham was so influential?). And within the major parties, there seems to have been a shift toward the mavericks and the unconventional – witness the 11.5% swing to Malcolm Turnbull in Wentworth.
So this looks like a clear movement against machine politics and business-as-usual. Whether however it will be a lasting movement, or just a temporary blip on the scale like 1998, is a different question.
The big difference from 1998 and 2001 is that the minor party vote then was spread among three significant parties. This time, it’s heavily concentrated in the Greens, who with 11.4% have leapt the psychological 10% barrier for the first time – the fourth minor party to ever do so (Lang Labor did it in the 1930s, the Country Party has done it several times and the Democrats did it once, in 1990).
So for all the attention currently being focused on the independents, the future of big party hegemony in Australia for the time being will mostly depend on the Greens. They have before them the bad example of the Democrats, who fell precipitously from their 1990 peak of 11.3% to just 3.8% three years later. If the same thing happens to the Greens, many people in the major parties will breathe a lot easier.
But although their level of support is much the same, the Greens have several advantages over the Democrats. Their support is more concentrated, giving them a power base in the inner cities where they are competing with Labor on a two-party basis. It was rare for the Democrats to ever carry even a single polling place, but there are now a swathe of majority-Greens polling places across inner Melbourne and Sydney, plus a sprinkling of them elsewhere. There are also a number of strong Liberal areas where the Greens are poised to take over from Labor as the second party.
Perhaps more importantly, the Greens have a philosophical coherence to them that the Democrats always seemed to lack. One does not have to agree with the Greens to recognise that they represent a genuine social movement, with activists who actually want to do things rather than just gain power (or just deny it to someone else). That offers some hope that their newly-enlarged caucus will be less prey to destructive personality disputes than the Democrats were.
The Greens also have the advantage of having grown slowly. The Democrats (like One Nation) were an overnight sensation, winning 9.4% in their first election, whereas the Greens have built support gradually over two decades. That gives them a more experienced leadership and a more durable party structure; it should also make them less vulnerable to sudden changes of fortune.
Successful parties needs to stand for something, but they also need to display flexibility. A party that is ideologically bereft risks the fate of the Democrats, but too much ideology can be just as dangerous. The jury is still out on whether the Greens can display the required degree of pragmatism.
For the major parties, however, shortage of pragmatism is the exact opposite of their problem. The electorate is tired of sloganeering, opportunism and focus-group-driven policies. If Labor and the Coalition learn that lesson, they may yet recapture their dominant position. If they don’t, the Greens – or someone else – will fill the vacuum.
Mightn’t the Greens risk splitting between environmentalists and soft socialists?
@Gavin: yes, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a split at some point, and I think there’ll definitely be some robust debate in their party room, but so far they seem a lot less addicted to personal infighting than the Democrats were.
Yeah! Sure Charles. In case you haven’t heard Liberals are a bees dick away from power – all thanks to overwhelming support from very satisfied Australians.
Charles, what is your thoughts about the Greens fate if another election is held soon, or soonish (12-18 months). Does all this “instability” (which even if not particularly unstable, will be sold that way relentlessly on the front page of all News Ltd papers) cause the timid Australian voter to run back to the major party apron strings?
I fear the electoral system is just so skewed to the two main parties, without electoral change, third parties will just flame out after a while because their voters get weary of zero power or influence. If Abbott actually manages to form a minority government (which BK still thinks is most likely?) it is almost certain he will call another election as soon as he thinks he can regain those few extra seats, probably 6 months. What will Greens think voting Greens got them?
The Greens have done it hard for 20 years and if they remember that they will be fine growing incrementally every year as the ecological imperative grows greater every day. This follows the historic unravel of post WW2 material expansionism and consumption as an end in itself. They’ve always had 4 principles of social and economic justice, peace, ecology and grassroots democracy.
These four principles are a philosophical crucible for synthesising complex policy issues. The last one in particular is meant to check cult of personality, dictatorial tendencies and cynical gatekeeping.