The minute anyone in the Liberal Party dares raise concerns about One Nation, it is met with cries of, “One Nation are not the enemy.” I noticed Alex Antic making that point again on television last night. Frankly, it’s becoming tiresome.
When are people going to recognise that critiquing a political opponent does not automatically mean you regard them as an enemy? Politics isn’t a friendship contest; it’s a contest for votes and representation.
The Coalition and One Nation compete for many of the same voters and, in some electorates, the same seats. That makes them competitors. Any competent political strategist knows you must understand your competitors, identify where you differ, and explain those differences to the voters you hope to persuade. That’s not hostility; it’s basic political strategy and common sense.
There also seems to be an elephant in the room. Any perceived criticism of Pauline Hanson or One Nation is too often met with a tsunami of outrage from some supporters, as though the party should somehow be beyond scrutiny. That is neither healthy nor democratic. Ironically, many of those same voices have no hesitation in fiercely criticising Labor, the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals.
Social media also reveals something about the quality of our political discourse. When measured critique is immediately dismissed as an “attack”, or anyone raising legitimate concerns is branded disloyal, it suggests that tribal loyalty has taken precedence over critical thinking. A mature democracy depends on citizens being willing to examine arguments on their merits, even when those arguments involve a party or leader they support.
Political maturity isn’t demonstrated by defending a party at all costs. It’s demonstrated by being prepared to acknowledge both its strengths and its weaknesses.
No political leader or political party should be immune from critique. Robust scrutiny is essential if voters are to make informed decisions. If expressing a genuine, evidence-based criticism means losing supporters, then perhaps those supporters were never interested in honest debate in the first place. A healthy political movement should be confident enough to tolerate disagreement without treating every criticism as disloyalty.
None of that prevents parties from recommending preferences to one another. Australia’s preferential voting system often makes that both practical and sensible.
But let’s be honest: every political party enters an election intending to maximise its own representation. The major parties seek to form government, while minor parties aim to increase their parliamentary influence. No party campaigns with the objective of finishing second.
Political competition and political cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Parties can compete vigorously for votes while still recommending preferences where it serves their broader strategic interests. Recognising that reality shouldn’t be controversial; it’s simply how Australia’s political system works.
If our democracy is to remain healthy, we need to stop confusing scrutiny with hostility. Critique is not betrayal. It is an essential part of political maturity, democratic accountability and informed citizenship.
