Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu was right when he said on Monday that the reason the Liberal and National parties lost the federal election was not because they weren't a single party. Similarly, the explanation for the Liberals being in opposition in every state and territory is not because they haven't joined with the Nationals.
In the wake of their election defeat it's inevitable that the Liberal and National parties would contemplate a merger.
Given the Liberals' electoral condition, it's appropriate that all reasonable suggestions for reform be debated. However, a merger is not the answer to either party's problems.
Merger advocates have suggested that a single party would indicate to the electorate that the Liberals and Nationals have got their house in order and are serious about beating the ALP. But there could actually be more disorder in a merged party as the number of leadership positions is halved and MPs jostle for privilege and status. The advantages of a merger are unclear. But its disadvantages are numerous and obvious.
The problems fall into four categories -- the practical, the philosophical, the electoral and the consequences for democracy.
First, negotiating and then implementing an amalgamation would consume enormous resources of time and money -- resources better spent on developing new policies and recruiting party members. A merger would be a massive distraction from the real issues confronting the parties.
Second, the philosophies of the Liberal Party and the Nationals are quite different. The political principles the Liberals embody are a combination of conservatism (in both a political and social sense) and classic liberalism. These principles are not always practised but they're clear nevertheless.
It is one of the great frauds of Australian political history that the Liberal Party and its precursors have been labelled simply as the "non-Labor" parties, thereby defining the Liberals by what they're against rather than what they're for. The reality is that the Liberal Party has always been more likely than the ALP to support the rights of individuals. The debate over WorkChoices sums up these differences. The Liberals supported the right of individuals to negotiate their own working conditions, Labor did not.
The primary purpose of the Nationals is to defend the interests of farmers and those living in rural and regional areas. Not too much of the classic liberal tradition there. Over its history the Nationals have proved just as happy to support the ALP as the Liberals. Too often the Nationals have been all too willing to justify their "agrarian socialist" label. For example, the party continues to defend regulations stopping wheat farmers selling their produce on the open market. At other times the Nationals have played important and responsible roles such as when they supported John Howard's gun laws. If not for the Nationals, gun law reform would not have been implemented as smoothly as it was. The Liberals and the Nationals working together in a coalition has provided the best of both worlds. The parties can co-operate without either losing its identity.
Third, were the Nationals to fold there's every chance that a new rural-based party would emerge to replace them.
The election of independent regional MPs demonstrates what happens when electors feel they are not being represented. An amalgamation between the parties has the potential to alienate swathes of voters in regional Australia.
Finally, there is the broader issue of whether one big conservative/liberal party is in the best interests of Australian democracy. Big is not always better. A multiplicity of parties is healthy for our political system.
In Victoria's upper house, five political parties are represented and the Labor Government doesn't hold a majority. At the moment Victoria's upper house is probably the country's most successful parliamentary chamber in terms of holding the government to account. An upper house in which there were only two parties would be nowhere near as effective.
Ultimately elections are decided according to the leadership and policies of the parties. Given that in any merged party Liberal MPs would comprise a majority, it is likely that only a Liberal would ever become leader. And where the Liberals and Nationals are in coalition, such as at the federal level and in Victoria and NSW, policy is made on behalf of both parties anyway.
If the leadership and the policies of any new party would not be any different to what currently exists, the question is why bother with a merger?
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment