Backward step. “Parties the problem, not the solution”

Current talk of independent MPs (“Teals”) forming a new party is worrying and potentially a major step back for a functioning democracy. Tim Dunlop he argues.

The independent community movement had the potential to be the beginning of a revival of democratic politics in Australia.

Their originality emerged from the structured debates on kitchen table conversations that have developed in the Voice-Of movement and local organizing since 2013, and their commitment to the idea that representation should be based in community negotiations rather than party offices.

That’s why the 2022 elections were important. The result was not just a typical move or protest vote: it was a realignment of the electorate around a new “floating third”. Independents not only ripped out the heart of the Liberal Party, they established the beginnings of a crossbench, or crossbench, with genuine democratic legitimacy.

This was not a glitch in the system, although the media often covered it that way. It was the system that finally tried to reflect the pluralism of the country.

parts that do not fit into the traditional two-party system.

Incredibly, this was the kind of organic correction that few countries have been able to achieve, which boiled down to excessive intervention by political parties. If current reporting is correct and a significant number of people independent of society will now form a new political party, this innovation will be compromised.

To understand why, we need a little history and political theory.

Particracy vs democracy

Parties present themselves as the natural form of politics and, as a political formation, they certainly offer advantages. Much of the media coverage, as well as our official parliamentary practice, helps perpetuate this naturalistic illusion, and in the standard story, Australia’s system of government is understood as what happens when one party or coalition commands a majority.

Although rare, the so-called “hung parliament” situation is considered a kind of pathology.

What is erased in this story is not just how it is erased We suspect that the architects of the federation are party members. (Like the Founding Fathers of the USA: Editor’s note) it went so far as to deliberately leave them out of the constitution. Eventually, the arrival of powerful parties removed parliament’s authority and deliberation and moved it behind caucus doors, party rooms and executive committees.

Debate and sovereignty, the real work of balancing conflicting interests, arguments and evidence, have been removed from public view. Decisions made in backrooms were implemented through ruthless party discipline, then more or less approved by the parliamentary chamber, which increasingly acted as stage props rather than a representative body.

This was sold back to us as democracy, but what we were actually presented with was a major reversal: elected members stopped representing voters in parliament and started representing the party to the voters.

Former teal says there are pros and cons to forming an official party

Two-party system error

Over time, the two-party system normalized this power grab to such an extent that the political class, including much of the media, began to view “politics” and “parties” as synonymous. The choreography of the opposition against the government, the Leader of the Opposition against the Prime Minister, became the whole story and anything that disrupted this rhythm was considered instability.

The result is a self-serving definition of stable government that presents the smooth running of party machines as the goal, ignoring what is deeper and more demanding.

Stability that comes from a system that is truly responsive to diverse constituencies.

So current talk of independents forming a new party is worrying and potentially a major step backwards. I’m not against loose alliances or co-branding, and some of that already exists unofficially in the way these MPs collaborate and vote. I have always been clear that independents are not magically above politics.

But party is something else. It is an organizational form that centralizes control, disciplines members, and redirects decision-making away from local communities and back to a caucus.

To the extent that a new party takes root primarily in the affluent, liberal-leaning seats that gave birth to the first wave of community independents in the Voices mould, it will run the risk of a complete hardening of the class and geographical boundaries that drive political decision-making away from egalitarian outcomes.

One step back

If independents follow this route, they cease to be an experiment in doing politics differently and become, at best, new players in the same old game:

The very game that voters said they were tired of.

The 2022 breakthrough, which shows that communities can organize outside the party system, pre-select and elect their own representatives, will be reinterpreted as a mere staging ground for another party brand.

The alternative they represent—a growing, heterogeneous platform connected to local communities, bound by overlapping values ​​rather than a single platform, and ready to negotiate issue by issue—is not only a healthier way of doing politics, but much closer to what we mean by democracy.

It would not abolish parties, but it would break their monopoly on representation and force a re-democratization of parliamentary life, allowing governments to form public majorities rather than just privately counting the number of party meetings.

In my book, Voices from UsI have argued that independents are part of a long arc through which citizens can take politics back from the closed circuits of party and media. The danger now, along with the perceived threat of One Nation in its understandable search for resources, personnel and status, is that this arc has bent towards the form that hollowed out our democracy in the first place.

If independents are serious about transforming Australian politics, they need to resist the pull of party logic and maintain faith in communities that are proving another way is possible.

At this point we don’t know what a new party will look like, and as I said, I’m not opposed to a loose Coalition that provides collective advantage to those who choose to join it. Considering how our systems of government, including recent changes to campaign finance laws, stack the ledgers in favor of parties, it’s understandable that people might want to access the built-in advantages of this formation. But no matter how much advantage is gained, something fundamental and potentially transformative will be lost.

This all means:

I still tend to think that parties are the problem, not the solution.

And here’s something else to keep in mind.

Local communities who voted for independents in 2022 and 2025 took a huge risk and placed great confidence that their candidates would do politics differently. If it turns out that it’s all about the creation of another political party, it will not only be a shame, but very close to treason.

Published with permission – original here.

Turquoise independents are in talks to form their own party