Politicss
Yes, we have a far right in Australia
In Australia we may draw smug comfort from the absence of anything that matches the electoral appeal of the Alternative für Deutschland, Farage’s Reform UK, the French Rassemblement National, or what the US Republican Party has become under Führer Trump.
But maybe that’s because the far right in Australia is disunited. Combine an articulate and attractive figurehead, with some organizational skills, and we could be confronting a formidable movement.
That’s the basic view of a panel of experts convened at the University of Canberra, recorded and broadcast on the ABC’s Big Ideas program The Australian far right today. It’s a discussion, moderated by Natasha Mitchell, of the work of Jordan McSwiney, author of Far-right political parties in Australia: disorganisation and electoral failure. The other panellists are Kristy Campion of Charles Sturt University and Ariel Bogie of Guardian Australia.
Flags of convenience
Although McSwiney’s book title mentions “parties”, his work concerns the views and behaviour of disparate unorganized and semi-organized groups characterized by racism, illiberalism, opposition to democracy, anti-egalitarianism, and a cult of exclusion. Not all the movements he classifies as the far right are characterized by all these properties, but they exhibit enough of them to put themselves well outside the philosophies of parties that have had political power in Australia.
One point the panel made is that so far we have not had a clear far-right “party”. Even in its name Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is gathered around one person, rather than a movement. Similarly for Clive Palmer’s UAP.
The far-right movements sport several labels –“sovereign citizens” and “Christian” for example. Common beliefs include the ideas of a “deep state” controlling our lives and depriving us of our weapons, and “displacement theory” – the existence of forces who will displace “whites” from their legitimate position at the apex of the racial hierarchy. The Covid pandemic provided plenty of support for belief in such conspiratorial views of society.
The far right tends to assemble under common symbols. The Hakenkreuz (aka misleadingly as the Buddhist swastika), the Eureka flag, the red ensign, and the official Australian flag, with the British flag in the corner, are among their chosen symbols.
Politically we may be provided with some protection by compulsory voting. Far-right movements, if they are well-organized, can rally supporters to vote in countries with low electoral turnout achieving the benefits of electoral representation. When there is compulsory voting, even if many voters are disengaged, that effect is diluted.
In the discussion there was some speculation about the extent of international coordination of far-right movements. There is certainly communication and imitation, helped by social media. There is the annual CPAC – the Conservative Political Action Conference – a generator of misinformation and disinformation which draws together far-right politicians worldwide, including many from our Coalition parties. There is evidence that a white supremacist international outfit known as “Active Clubs”, operating under the guise of sporting gatherings, is becoming established in Australia.
It’s always hard to draw boundaries defining political movements, particularly when we rely on a single “left”-“right” spectrum. Should the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy be classified as far-right, because of their opposition to republicanism and support for a foreign monarch? The panel mentioned far-right movements using “Christian” as a brand name, but there was no mention of far-right Islam or Hindu movements. The “left” in America often falls into the trap of believing that any movement that is outside the imagined “male, white, Christian” mainstream is on their side. Prejudice and hatred, however, are blind to gender, skin colour, and the presence or otherwise of religious belief.
The case for compulsory voting
Recent elections in Europe have had low voter turnout, and many commentators believe that the outcome of the coming US election will depend less on people’s support for Trump and Harris (assuming she is nominated) than it will on voter turnout.
The argument for voluntary voting is that it gives more weight to those with stronger views about political choices. Those who have formed their views based on careful consideration of candidates’ policies should not have their democratic power weakened by the less-informed who turn up for the sausage sizzle or to avoid a fine.
That’s a superficially convincing argument, but it has some weaknesses when campaigns are based on misinformation and disinformation, when the most passionate are not necessarily the most well-informed, and when governments can use subtle (occasionally unsubtle) means to suppress voter turnout.
Writing in The Conversation Paul Strangio of Monash University puts the case for retaining our system of compulsory voting, overseen by an independent electoral commission: Compulsory voting in Australia is 100 years old. We should celebrate how special it makes our democracy.
He reminds us that the strongest assaults on compulsory voting, in state and federal parliaments, have been from Coalition members of Parliament, including John Howard.