Today marks the fifth anniversary of the replacement of the most recent Australian Prime Minister to be politically terminated by their own party.
The old mantra about ‘living and dying by the sword’ seemed quite applicable to Malcolm Turnbull because he had undone his predecessor similarly.
The up ending of an incumbent Prime Minister by their own parliamentary caucus has never been a core issue of concern for me.
Look beyond the personalities involved and these things reflect bigger more fundamental issues of interest.
In the tactical play of the time, Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull used poor polling and perceived voter unpopularity of the then incumbent as the reason for their party room coups.
But in the broader scheme of things, these ‘palace revolutions’ to the left and right of the political centre reflected the difficulties Prime Ministers from the two big parties – the so-called parties of government – the ALP and the Liberal Party, have in decoupling from their core bases on the left or the right.
Not really ‘natural fits’ in their respective parties of choice, as government leaders Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull gravitated to the political centre attempting to elevate themselves above the Canberra fray to pitch directly to voters.
As a political power strategy, it was always risky and destined to end in tears – and not because of the voters.
Coup apologists will blame the personalities and leadership styles of these men, but rarely if ever have such traits resulted in sitting Prime Ministers being turfed out of office by their own parties.
Rudd and Turnbull were doomed because neither offered upside for the factional and sectional interests that claim to be the base supporters of their respective parties.
In contrast, two of our longest serving Prime Ministers transcended these limitations and did what Rudd and Turnbull failed to do.
Bob Menzies and Bob Hawke were of very different eras.
Through the dark and threatening Cold War years of the 1950s and early 1960s, Menzies held sway without peer.
Hawke was to dominate for the better part of the 1980s when Australia’s economy and society were among the first to benefit from what we would later call globalisation.
Both leaders captured and held the support of Australians who make up the political centre, while managing those among their own who were unhappy at their success.
While the partisans among us will argue the merits of either leader, undeniably Australia changed and improved during their time in government.
So this has me thinking.
Are governments that can command and draw on the centre the best governments and thinking beyond government, why cannot we have a political party – a third party of government – that unambiguously claims the middle ground and gives voice to those of us that are neither Liberal nor Labor – but also not fringe.
Is it possible to construct an alternative to the current power-sharing duopoly which sees both sides get turns at being in government and opposition?
Irrespective of who wins at election time, our governments increasingly are elected by an unengaged, disaffected electorate which has almost given up on expecting the political class to be transparent and accountable.
And the real casualty has been the value and respect people place on our democracy, citizenship and the freedoms we enjoy.
Among younger Australians, particularly, most disturbing is their growing cynicism about the value of being involved in politics and the role that individuals can play in making a difference for the good.
If there is an alternative path, it would lead to a public interest that more directly reflected the concerns of the more than two-thirds of Australians of all ages who don’t figure in or identify too closely with today’s ALP and Liberal Party.
And being essentially a practical, easy-going and tolerant people, these same people listen even less to the bossy ramblings of the impractical Left or the conspiracist ravings of the fringe Right – and for that matter their tribal spruikers in the media.
So, for the moderate middle, is there a place for a third party of government, a party that represented both centre-left and centre-right voters with the emphasis and focus most of all on the centre?
It might even involve perhaps a reinvention of elements of the current parties.
Can it happen in the years ahead?
On the day Turnbull was dumped as PM, this was a notion I reflected about in a letter to my Facebook circle.
A letter from 24 August 2018
“24 August 2018
On days like this I wonder to myself almost despairingly and perhaps naively or idealistically why cannot there be a political party for those Australians who gravitate to the centre of the political spectrum?
It would be for reasonable, decent citizens committed to their families and communities – supporters of free enterprise, the value of hard work, and personal responsibility.
But it would subscribe also to the ‘fair go’ for all with enabling equity and accessibility measures, especially in education and health.
Where is the party that could be home to people who think critically and fairly and reject the conformist cultural straitjackets and easy satisfaction of the facile and politically correct?
Where is the progressive political party promoting social tolerance that embraces also respect for the secular rights and freedoms of others?
Where is the party that can stand up for the “little people” without relying on or indulging the excesses of militant unions or entertaining the collectivist and simplistic prescriptions of the green left?
Where is that political party which will keep the country and its borders safe and secure, invest in our regions and the people who live outside the cities, but is comfortable also with a multiracial culturally diverse country?
And when we find it, could it not be hostage to the simple-minded ideologues and fundamentalists who reject understanding or acceptance of science when it challenges their world view or economic interest?
Perhaps we could have such a party, but it would mean a remarking of the national political landscape and its architecture.
It would mean a mobilising initiative in the political centre of a magnitude akin to what happened on the left with the shearers’ strike and the formation of the ALP in the 1890s.
It would also have to be as embracing and as flexible as that right of centre party founded in 1943 by a failed former Prime Minister who went on to our nation’s longest serving leader.
He launched the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party, to represent those “forgotten people” – the small business owners, tradies and farmers – not catered for by organised labour or the sectional interest of big business.
Sadly, over time the idea of his ‘broad church’ party was overtaken by factions with their completing ideologies.
Today, I feel the time is nigh for Australians to learn from and be inspired by the past and refuse to accept that the current duo-polity is both inevitable and enduring.”
Looking back since that night we’ve had governments come and go federally and, in most states, and territories.
But not much seems to have changed in our political processes.
If anything, government and parliamentary politics seem more sectionally accountable and partisan than ever.
The success of independent candidates in the 2022 election suggests that I am not alone in my wondering of a future Australian polity beyond the possibilities of the two major parties.
It will be interesting to see if the attraction of independents extends beyond the ‘woke rebellion’ of leafy Liberal electorates.
My sense is that the allure of the urban independents will falter in one or two elections, because as brokers of power and influence they only matter when the margin between government and opposition numbers is thin enough for them to hold the balance of power.
Interestingly, in response to my FB post, I received many messages liking the idea of a centre party.
More surprisingly, was the response from friends actively involved in parties across the political spectrum.
To a person, they all said my words reflected what their party was largely about.
Reflecting on this I can only conclude that people find it easy to identify core values and beliefs and things they want to stand for – it motivates them to join political parties in the first place.
But in the practice of politics lofty motivations succumb very quickly to the opportunities presented in partisan conflict and differentiation.
Our politicians are more likely to talk about the other side and what they don’t like and are opposed to rather than what they stand for.
And that is why I would like to see a third party of government in our parliaments, the party of the sensible centre.
Professor John Cole 