Protest Votes Don’t Govern: Why Minor Parties and Disunity Deliver Nothing

There is an uncomfortable truth many conservative voters do not want to hear:

Minor parties cannot govern. And One Nation is not an institution; it is a personality-driven machine. Previous history has shown us what happens when the leader is a personality and new entrants challenge that.

Even with occasional high-profile figures drifting in and out, minor parties lack the fundamentals required to run a country:

• A credible ministerial bench
• Serious policy development machinery
• Cabinet experience (often down to one person)
• Parliamentary discipline and cohesion

Such is the case with One Nation.

Governing requires numbers, organisation, institutional memory, and constant negotiation. Personality, anger, and slogans do not deliver energy reform, border security, fiscal restraint, or industrial relations changes.

History repeatedly confirms this.

One Nation has held Senate leverage multiple times. What did it produce?

• Noise
• Delays
• Symbolic votes
• Media moments

But real conservative reform? Zero.

Blocking legislation is not governing. Delaying reform is not reform. Protest is not policy.

And fixing the issues of energy reliability, budget restraint, and IR reform were not delivered through Senate theatrics. Hence we are paying a very high price for that now. Meanwhile, bureaucratic power expanded quietly in the background and Labor proceeded to introduce more and more draconian reforms. 

It is a fact that protest voting weakens the right and hands power to the Labor. It fractures conservative support and that fragmentation does not punish Labor it protects them.

Under Australia’s Westminster system, when conservatives splinter:

• Governments weaken
• Legislation stalls
• Crossbenchers gain leverage
• Bureaucrats and regulators fill the vacuum

While conservatives fight each other, progressive policies advance by default.

The last two federal elections are evidence. Protest votes helped deliver Albanese not because Labor persuaded more people, but because conservatives divided themselves.

This is not theory. It is structural reality.

Coalition Disunity Is the Fuel for Minor Parties

Here’s the part many don’t want to admit:

One Nation grows when the Coalition publicly implodes.

Endless infighting between Liberals and Nationals sends a clear message to voters: dysfunction. That doesn’t inspire reform-minded conservatives; it pushes them toward anger and protest.

When the Coalition fights itself:

• Labor governs unchallenged
• Minor parties fill the gaps
• Voters disengage or protest-vote
• Executive authority shifts to the bureaucracy and courts

Unity is not about suppressing debate or ideological conformity. Internal disagreement is healthy. But public disunity is electoral suicide.

A divided Coalition does not look principled it looks incapable of governing.

Frustrated voters often say: “Labor and the Coalition are identical.” But in reality, that is a comforting lie promoted on social media and by some conservative media.

It feels true because:

• Bureaucracy slows reform
• Senate fragmentation dilutes outcomes
• Governments avoid high-risk decisions

But the differences are real and over time they compound.

Taxes, regulation, energy costs, border enforcement, defence posture these do not drift randomly. They move directionally. And when conservatives abandon governing-capable parties, the direction is always left.

Conversely, voters support One Nation because they promise to attack woke culture and to “leave the UN” or “exit the WEF.”

Reality check:

• The WEF is a forum, not a treaty. You can’t formally “leave” it.
• UN membership is legally binding. Withdrawal would devastate trade, defence, and diplomatic credibility. Even a majority conservative government would struggle. Even the US has not withdrawn from UN. Some agencies yes, but not the UN. 
• Treaties can only be renegotiated by governments with numbers, discipline, and negotiating credibility. Minor parties have none.

Selective withdrawal from specific UN agencies or agreements is possible but only by a serious government, not protest movements. Unlike the US we don’t have a President with presidential powers.

Another myth is that minor parties keep major parties accountable.

The record says otherwise:

• Legislative blocking without reform
• Transactional politics
• Weak governments
• Expanding bureaucratic control

When governments are weak, accountability does not increase it disappears into unelected institutions. Anyone who currently watches Senate Estimates knows this only too well. 

True accountability requires strong, disciplined governments under pressure to deliver outcomes.

The Hard Truth for Conservatives

If you care about:

• Border security
• Fiscal responsibility
• Energy reliability
•  Industrial relations reform

Then understand this:

• Personality politics will not deliver results
• Protest parties fracture the conservative vote
• Coalition infighting accelerates conservative defeat
• Weak governments empower Labor and the bureaucracy

Every serious conservative reform in Australia’s modern history came from united parties capable of governing, not from minor parties posturing from the sidelines.

The frustration is real. Anger is justified.

But voting for One Nation or indulging Coalition civil wars:

• Feels like action
• Produces nothing substantive
• Weakens the only viable governing alternative
• Hands power to Labor by default

Protest votes don’t govern. Disunity doesn’t reform.

Politically serious conservatives who want outcomes, not slogans, must demand unity, discipline, and competence from the Liberals and Nationals and hold them accountable from within.

That is how reform happens in Australia.

• Not through protest.
• Not through personalities.
• But through governing strength.

𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐚.

Australia likes to think of itself as immune to the worst excesses of political polarisation. We don’t have a president, our voting system rewards moderation, and compulsory voting keeps extremists marginal — or so the story goes. That confidence is increasingly misplaced.

Political disagreement is healthy tribalism is not. Political tribalism is taking hold, and while it doesn’t look like the chaos seen overseas, its effects are corrosive, cumulative, and dangerous.

Tribalism occurs when political affiliation stops being about ideas or policies and becomes a core identity — something to be defended regardless of evidence, outcomes, or consequences. At that point, loyalty matters more than truth, and winning matters more than governing.

In Australia, this shift has been subtle but unmistakable. Increasingly, voters judge policies not on merit, but on who proposed them. A bad idea from “our side” is forgiven. A good idea from the other side is rejected on principle.

That is not democracy functioning. That is nothing more than tribal team sport. 

Australia operates under a Westminster system built on cabinet responsibility, compromise, and parliamentary accountability. Yet our political culture is being dragged toward a US-style, presidential mindset strongman leaders, personality politics, and “winner takes all” thinking.

This model is fundamentally incompatible with Australia’s constitutional reality. We do not elect presidents. Prime ministers are not kings. Power here is fragmented by design. Tribal politics doesn’t just clash with that system it actively undermines it.

And the Governor-General can’t just sack the Prime Minister and the Govt. based on political tribal dislike.

One of the most damaging consequences of tribalism is moral absolutism. Opponents are no longer merely wrong; they are portrayed as evil, corrupt, un-Australian, traitors or dangerous. Once politics is framed in those terms, compromise becomes betrayal and pragmatism becomes weakness.

But Australia’s biggest challenges; housing, energy transition, defence, productivity, immigration, law and order and social cohesion cannot be solved by absolutism. They require trade-offs, at times imperfect solutions, and a willingness to accept partial wins.

Tribalism makes all of that impossible.

And tribal politics creates a fertile environment for grievance peddlers. They don’t need workable policies. They need enemies. Their success depends on keeping supporters angry, fearful, and perpetually aggrieved. Outrage becomes the product, and governance becomes irrelevant.

This style of politics thrives online, where algorithms reward anger and simplicity over nuance and accuracy. The result is a feedback loop of resentment, misinformation, and performative outrage with real-world consequences.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Australia’s tribal turn is the collapse in civic literacy.

Complex systems — constitutional law, federalism, budgeting, courts are reduced to memes and slogans. Half-understood constitutional excerpts are waved around as trump cards. Confidence replaces competence.

A little knowledge weaponised by tribal loyalty becomes more dangerous than ignorance. Democracy depends on an informed public. Tribalism thrives on the opposite.

Tribalism rarely destroys democracies overnight. It weakens them slowly through paralysis, cynicism, and the hollowing out of the political centre. It turns disagreement into hostility and politics into identity warfare. The damage is quiet, but it is real.

Australia doesn’t need less disagreement. It needs better disagreement. Our democratic system survives only when people accept that opponents can be wrong without being enemies.

Political tribalism isn’t just changing Australian politics.

If it continues and left unchecked, it will continue to dramatically change Australia itself for the worse.

Compromise isn’t weakness - it’s the backbone of a functioning democracy

In today’s political climate, it’s easy to forget what keeps a government functioning. Successful government relies on legislative compromises, not rigid ideology, unilateral action, or the whims of a single leader. Yet too often, both left and right political tribes are so caught up in scoring points or shoring up their base. They do not understand why compromise is essential. Social media only amplifies this. That turns nuance into outrage, debate into soundbites, and governance into a spectator sport.

Supporting sound policy doesn’t automatically make you “left” or “right”; it’s a matter of political maturity. Maturity means recognising that good ideas can come from anywhere and that governance is about results, not allegiance. Regardless of which side of politics you support, we all need government to succeed. A good opposition understands the value of sound negotiation and politically mature compromise—they don’t reject ideas simply because mthey come from the other side, but because they assess whether they strengthen governance and serve the public.

Real governance isn’t about forcing one party’s agenda on the nation—it’s about negotiation, balancing competing interests, and finding solutions that most can live with. When tribalism and online echo chambers dominate, policy grinds to a halt. When that happens, public trust evaporates, and the system itself falters.