|
|
|
Book Review
| Ian Marsh (ed.), Political Parties in Transition? Federation Press, Sydney, 2006. pp. x + 240. $49.95 paper.
|
| In an election year such as 2007 Australia's political parties take centre stage. As the pre-election debate heats up each party clamours to convince the voting public that they are the more responsible, the more responsive, and above all the most representative party of all. One would be forgiven for thinking that the voices that lead each news bulletin, particularly the loudest voices from the two major parties, are indeed representing a substantial membership and are in touch with the views of the wider Australian voting public. |
1
|
|
The reality, however, is somewhat different. In Australia, as in other democracies, the major political parties are declining in terms of membership, voter identification, and in the percentage of the vote they attract. Minor parties and independent candidates seem somewhat more attractive to voters, but the structure and funding of our electoral system, and the influence of the major parties themselves, work to shut smaller players out of the political game to varying degrees. This structural bias in favour of the bigger parties is also thought to contribute to policy convergence as the major parties mimic each other in order to exclude the minor parties. This view of major party dominance is the foundation of the cartel thesis of contemporary political parties, originally advanced by Richard Katz and Peter Mair, and it is this thesis that is tested in the Australian context in this collection |
2
|
|
Although not obvious from the table of contents, the introduction makes clear that the book is divided into three sections. Section one of the collection sees editor Ian Marsh provide the context for the book, outlining four phases in the evolution of the Australian party system and setting out the tenets of the cartel thesis. Dean Jaensch then fleshes out the changes in structure and process of the major parties, charting the decline of the mass party and arguing for greater public control of the major parties in the interests of a stronger democracy. |
3
|
|
In the second section there are contributions from Gary Johns, Ian Ward, Rodney Smith and John O'Mahony, and Ian Marsh again. Taken together these chapters consider the evidence available to support or discredit the party thesis in Australia. The focus is on areas that are generally understood as preserving major party dominance, specifically party resources, approaches to campaigning, changes to the electoral system, and the alleged development of ideological convergence between the major parties and the subsequent shift in representation towards elite agendas at the expense of community. |
4
|
|
The final section of the book considers the role of new and minor parties in challenging major party dominance. Here John Warhurst considers the National Party and the Democrats, Ariadne Vromen and Nick Turnbull assess the Australian Greens, Murray Goot takes a critical view of the cartel thesis in light of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, and Raymond Miller points to the consolidation of cartelisation in the transition to a multi-party system in New Zealand. |
5
|
|
While the book is a most welcome addition to the somewhat patchy field of party studies in Australia, it is perhaps questionable whether linking the case study material through the contested cartel thesis alone provides a strong enough framework for the analysis. Nevertheless, the range and breadth of the material is generally insightful (although the chapter by former Institute for Public Affairs Senior Fellow, Gary Johns, is disappointing, as Johns is unable to leave aside his campaign against non-government organisations even in a chapter on party organisations and resources). Overall the book is an important contribution to the literature on Australian party politics and makes a serious attempt to understand the phenomenon of party decline. |
6
|
| | | | |
| University of New South Wales |
SARAH MADDISON | |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|