I have a personal dislike for the slogan “uniparty, bordering on irrational intense hatred 😊.
Political scientists & critics (I include myself, for my sins, among the latter) have challenged the uniparty narrative as misleading.
I regard it as a convenient political weapon, used to discredit, dismiss & manipulate opinion. One that finds a particularly receptive audience among those more interested in political outrage than understanding the complexities of governance.
The irony is that we live in an era of considerable political polarisation, something those of us who are politically active are extremely aware of.
Yet we’re expected to believe that political parties with fundamentally different philosophies, policies & priorities are somehow all working together as one.
And it’s an increasingly easy narrative to sell to those who react to political headlines without bothering to examine the substance of policy, the nuances of legislation, or what ultimately passes through Parliament.
What populists frequently describe as “uniparty collusion” is often nothing more sinister than the normal functioning of parliamentary democracy.
𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.
Governments develop policies and introduce legislation.
Oppositions scrutinise that legislation, challenge its shortcomings, propose amendments, hold governments accountable and, where appropriate, support measures they believe are in the national interest.
And where governments lack the numbers to pass legislation, particularly in the Senate, negotiation and compromise become necessary.
That’s how our parliamentary system is designed to function. And it's how parliamentary politics should work, even if constructive compromise has become increasingly difficult in today's polarised environment.
Imagine an opposition that automatically rejected every piece of government legislation, irrespective of its merits, simply because the government proposed it.
Parliamentary business would become an exercise in obstruction rather than responsible governance. And frankly the country would grind to a halt.
𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to criticise political parties for abandoning principles, breaking promises, or supporting policies inconsistent with their stated positions. It goes without saying that those decisions deserve scrutiny.
But there is a considerable difference between holding political parties accountable for their decisions & dismissing the entire parliamentary process as a “uniparty.”
Perhaps before condemning the entire parliamentary process as evidence of political collusion, we should try to understand how our democracy actually works.
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞.
