With the recent branch-stacking revelations in the Liberals and Labor, I thought maybe it’s a good time to talk about some of the ugly aspects of major party internal politics.
The ALP’s rigid structures for control of voting have long incentivised branch manipulation. By and large, there is no ballot secrecy within the ALP. ‘Show and tell’ means that if I am factionally aligned, I have to physically show my ballot to a senior factional member to confirm that I have followed instructions on how to vote. When around 90% of delegates at an ALP conference are factionally aligned, all power within the party ultimately devolves to who can accrue the most bodies to follow their instructions. The chosen method of doing this is usually branch stacking.
The Liberals don’t have such rigid voting control structures, which makes stacking more difficult and less effective (although as we’ve seen it remains far from rare). However the increased local control allowed by the Liberal Party brings into play the lesser-known technique of branch-stripping. This is where a branch effectively closes itself off to new members, or additional obstacles are put in place to disenfranchise specific groups. Existing members hostile to the interests of the group seeking control are either driven off or allowed to dwindle through natural attrition. Within a few years the branch can be turned into a kind of rotten borough, under the control of a few people. It is a technique that has been used to huge effect by the religious right in Sydney’s northern suburbs.
These are problems that we don’t talk about nearly enough. Everyone kind of understands that internal party politics is a bit of a closed shop, and it’s kind of not really representative of the general public, but I don’t think the extent of the issue really parses for the voter on the street. From the late 1940s to 2014 – a period in which Australia’s population tripled – membership of the Liberal Party fell from 140,000 to 78,000. The ALP’s drop-off was even worse – 370,000 down to a mere 44,000.
Even if those 120,000-odd rank-and-file members were fully engaged, involved in the political process, and in democratic control of their party (they’re not), they are mostly older people and not particularly representative of your average Australian. Even the few younger ones are mostly aspiring politicians, eying off preselection more than anything else.
Is it realistic to expect Australian voters to join political parties en masse to ensure policy reflects the desires of the broader population? Bill Shorten thought so – but even whilst he was conducting his big push to raise ALP membership, Adam Somyurek was operating happily in Shorten’s own state branch.
Should Australian political parties just give up on the idea of being membership-based organisations? Shift to primaries and caucuses similar to the US for choosing candidates and setting policy?
Or does the current system work well enough, and it doesn’t really matter if the major parties continue to be controlled by an ever-dwindling number of people that are increasingly falling under the control of powerbrokers?
The ALP’s rigid structures for control of voting have long incentivised branch manipulation. By and large, there is no ballot secrecy within the ALP. ‘Show and tell’ means that if I am factionally aligned, I have to physically show my ballot to a senior factional member to confirm that I have followed instructions on how to vote. When around 90% of delegates at an ALP conference are factionally aligned, all power within the party ultimately devolves to who can accrue the most bodies to follow their instructions. The chosen method of doing this is usually branch stacking.
The Liberals don’t have such rigid voting control structures, which makes stacking more difficult and less effective (although as we’ve seen it remains far from rare). However the increased local control allowed by the Liberal Party brings into play the lesser-known technique of branch-stripping. This is where a branch effectively closes itself off to new members, or additional obstacles are put in place to disenfranchise specific groups. Existing members hostile to the interests of the group seeking control are either driven off or allowed to dwindle through natural attrition. Within a few years the branch can be turned into a kind of rotten borough, under the control of a few people. It is a technique that has been used to huge effect by the religious right in Sydney’s northern suburbs.
These are problems that we don’t talk about nearly enough. Everyone kind of understands that internal party politics is a bit of a closed shop, and it’s kind of not really representative of the general public, but I don’t think the extent of the issue really parses for the voter on the street. From the late 1940s to 2014 – a period in which Australia’s population tripled – membership of the Liberal Party fell from 140,000 to 78,000. The ALP’s drop-off was even worse – 370,000 down to a mere 44,000.
Even if those 120,000-odd rank-and-file members were fully engaged, involved in the political process, and in democratic control of their party (they’re not), they are mostly older people and not particularly representative of your average Australian. Even the few younger ones are mostly aspiring politicians, eying off preselection more than anything else.
Is it realistic to expect Australian voters to join political parties en masse to ensure policy reflects the desires of the broader population? Bill Shorten thought so – but even whilst he was conducting his big push to raise ALP membership, Adam Somyurek was operating happily in Shorten’s own state branch.
Should Australian political parties just give up on the idea of being membership-based organisations? Shift to primaries and caucuses similar to the US for choosing candidates and setting policy?
Or does the current system work well enough, and it doesn’t really matter if the major parties continue to be controlled by an ever-dwindling number of people that are increasingly falling under the control of powerbrokers?
Last edited:
