On ALP factionalism see Senator Faulkner's speech:
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/10/26-1716-6965.html.
Also, a warning from Davros himself--Robert Ray's speech to the Fabian Society:
http://www.fabian.org.au/1077.asp
See also R. Cavalier, "Could Chifley win Labor preselection today?"
On the "iron law of oligarchy" see Roberto Michels
(1) The basis of factionalism (in the ALP and also in the Liberal and other parties) is not ideology but PATRONAGE, i.e. the ability of factional leaders to confer jobs, honours and other good things on themselves and their favoured supporters. If you want a political career, join a faction and make yourself useful.
(2) Among the best things factional leaders dispose of are Senate seats. Factions control these in two ways:
(3) Another goodie is nomination to a "safe" seat in the House of Representatives; another is nomination to shadow cabinet; and of course there are many paid or prestigious positions within the party (e.g. State Secretary) that faction leaders can allocate.
(4) The Trade Unions do not control the ALP---at least not in the sense that ordinary working people have much influence. Rather, the unions themselves are controlled by the same factions as control the ALP. Ordinary working people have as much say in their union as sub-branch members have in the ALP. The factions use the unions as "nurseries". Patronage in the unions is used to foster and support junior factional members who hope later for a seat in the Senate or a safe seat in the House of Representatives. A typical career line: a university degree in law or industrial relations etc., a paid job in a union, leadership in a union, various positions in the ALP (including paid positions) culminating in a State Secretaryship or the like, nomination to the Senate or to a safe House of Representatives seat.
(5) The reason why the factions take very little notice of the views of "rusted on" party members in the sub-branches is that they don't need the support of ordinary sub-branch members. Why take notice of people you can't use? In Britain, Canada, the USA, party leaders have to consider the views of the "rank and file" because they need them to work to "get out the vote" at election time. If rank and file members are antagonised, they won't get out and doorknock.
In Australia compulsory voting, compulsory allocation of preferences, party identification on the ballot paper, "above the line" Senate voting, and other features of the voting system, guarantee that the vote will flow to candidates nominated by the party machine, despite any lack of enthusiasm on the part of sub-branch members or voters. Some party supporters get so antagonised that they vote informal, refusing to give the party's candidate even an nth preference, but most supporters hold their noses and give at least a second of third preference to the party's nominated candidate, however much they disapprove of the way that candidate was selected.
Sub-branch members go through the traditional motions of election campaigning (letter boxing, handing out how-to-vote cards, etc.), but these activities have no, or very little, effect on the outcome. No one needs a "how-to-vote" card, since these days the candidate's party identification is printed on the ballot paper.
(6) Factionalism seems less intense in the ACT than in the states. Perhaps this is because of the ACT electoral system. Its key features are proportional representation, optional expression of preferences and "Robson rotation". These minimise the influence of party factions by maximising the influence of voters. It does not offer much scope for electioneering by sub-branch members. In my opinion that is all right, since sub-branch members are voters--they get their influence that way.
(7) The direct election of the ALP national president, and other "reforms" sponsored by Simon Crean after the "Hawke-Wran" inquiry, have made no difference. The factions still flourish, and the sub-branch members are still ignored; this is because the national president cannot take any active or influential part in real political business. The president is a figure head without power. Their only function is to provide a PR face, and if possible repress public discussion of the party's shortcomings. See 7.30 Report interview: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1587228.htm How can problems be solved if people can't talk about them except behind closed doors?
(8) In my opinion there will be no reduction in factionalism within Australian political parties as long as there are "safe" House of Representatives seats and safe positions on the Senate ballot paper---as long as these things exist, factions will organise to control them. The adoption at Federal level of some features of the ACT electoral system would be a step in the right direction.
Suppose--
This would open to the parties the option of nominating more than one candidate for a House of Representative seat without splitting the vote and losing the seat. A party might adopt as one of its rules that any candidate who got 30% or more in the preselection ballot would be one of the nominees for the seat (this rule might apply only to safe seats). The party might also decide to recommend one candidate over the other(s), but it would be up to the electors to decide whether to follow that recommendation.
Suppose a party nominated two candidates in a certain House of Representatives seat. Party supporters who had no reason for preferring one candidate to the other would vote "above the line", and (by virtue of (2)) half of their first preferences would go to one candidate and half to the other, with their second preference then going to the other candidate--so far the two candidates would be running equal. However, those electors who did prefer one candidate to the other would vote "below the line" and express that preference. Thus the party's candidate preferred by the greater number of the party's voters would come out in the end ahead of the other.
The same thing would happen in Senate elections. It would not be up to the party's management to put the party's candidates in order, that would be done by the electors. Supporters who had no reason to prefer one of the party's Senate candidates to another would vote "above the line", and (by virtue of (2)) their preferences would be allocated to all the party's candidates equally. The eventual choice among the candidates would be made by "below the line" voters--- who might follow the party managers' advice, or not, depending on whether they believed that the party machine reflected the party's philosophy.
What I am suggesting would in effect build a "primary" into the election. (See the article by Peter Lynch in the Melbourne Age.) A primary "built-in" to the election itself is much better than a primary held before the election, for several reasons. All of the party’s voters participate, without having to register or do anything but vote. In a separate primary voters often vote not according to their own preference but according to their idea of which candidate swinging voters are more likely to vote for in the real election. Also, separate primaries are held before the election campaign proper gets under way, when the issues are not yet clear. Also, after a separate primary the defeated candidates and their supporters may sit on their hands, whereas if the primary is built into the election itself the party's nominees will put their full weight behind the party's campaign---given the flow of preferences to the party's other candidate(s), the effort each candidate makes to get elected will in the end benefit whichever candidate turns out to have most support. Also, a separate primary increases the total cost of the election, thereby increasing the influence of wealthy donors.
The main argument for a primary is that it gives the voters who support a party (not just the miniscule fraction of them who are members of the party) a say in the selection of the candidate. This should lead to an improvement in the quality and representativeness of candidates and members of Parliament. A candidate who had become known to the electorate as a public spirited person with good ideas would be able to replace a non-performing sitting member without a great pre-selection battle. It would also open the way to the nomination of women and minority candidates for winnable seats.
The effect on branch stacking, backroom dealing and the other incidents of preselection contests would be to repress behaviour that the party's voters regard as ugly and dysfunctional. If one candidate became notorious for ruthless behaviour, many of the party's voters would vote "below the line" for the other candidate.
Another effect would be to weaken factionalism. If the basis of the factions is patronage, then anything that weakens the power of the party's managers to allocate "safe" House of Representatives seats or to put Senate candidates high on the list weakens the incentive to capture the party organisation.
Most Australians think
that our preferential voting system is pretty good in comparison with the
“first past the post” systems of many other countries. We also support
compulsory voting—at least in the sense that people must go to the polling
place and get their names crossed off the list. This eliminates the “get out
the vote” campaigns characteristic of American politics, in which there is so
much scope for manipulation and for the corrupting influence of money.
See submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters:
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/Submission.html
Return to Philosophy, Politics and Medieval Studies