Oz Politics Blog

Forgive the pomo heading, but I have been developing my own aphorism for explaining the behaviour of the Australian electorate. The challenge I had set myself was to find a pithy statement that could explain (and perhaps predict) when a change of government is likely. However, before I explain what I mean by “inertia, proximity and alterity” I will quickly recap some of the conventional rules of thumb for Australia politics (noting that there is some overlap in the following formulations).

• Oppositions do not win; governments lose
• Australians do not tend to change government in the absence of a recession, or policy failures
• Inexperienced Opposition Leaders usually lose. Recession-free and debacle-free Prime Ministers usually win
• Governments lose when the economy turns sour, or when ministers are found to be corrupt, grossly incompetent or excessively arrogant
• Once elected, governments tend to serve at least two and often three or more terms
• Governments which win their first term by the barest majority, and provided they have not stuffed up, often go on to a win a more substantial majority in their second term

There is much about this conventional wisdom with which I agree. I have borrowed heavily from it for the first term in my formulation: inertia. What do I mean by inertia? Governments that are seen to be performing well tend to be re-elected. The aphorism - “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” - explains much in the Australia polity. My basic assumption for any election, all other things being equal, is against a change of government. The corollary is that oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them.

That which causes governments to lose elections brings me to the second term of my formulation: proximity. I contend that voting behaviour is largely driven by selfishness and personal circumstances. When things are going well for them, voters will stick with the government of the day; and when things are going poorly, they will punish the government of the day. It is not an iron clad rule — for example, governments are sometimes punished for corruption, arrogance or incompetence. But it is a useful rule of thumb.

Using this rule of thumb, I have dismissed David Hicks and the Iraq war as significant vote-drivers in the next election (the have insufficient proximity: they do not personally affect enough people with much impact). Furthermore, I have argued that water will be a significant issue, not because of climate change as such, but because the drought necessitated water restrictions have affected the backyards of the mum and dad voters. Many have argued that WorkChoices is another issue with proximity for the next election.

The final term in my formulation is alterity: is there a real choice? Is there an opposition and an opposition leader that embodies an acceptable alternative? If you take the 1993 Federal election, the recession we had to have was an issue of proximity but Hewson was not an acceptable alternative. The 2007 NSW election between Morris Iemma and Peter Debnham was another with issues of proximity but little positive alterity. Put simply, it takes both issues of significant proximity and positive alterity to overcome government inertia.

So there you have it: my rules of thumb for assessing a likely election outcome.