Australia’s far-right surge: How electoral fragmentation risks deepening policy paralysis and democratic erosion
Original framing: “Should One Nation and the Coalition strike a deal to win office? There are huge risks for both parties” — The Conversation - Global
Australia’s electoral system was designed in the early 1900s to exclude Indigenous Australians and working-class voters, embedding a two-party dominance that has persisted for over a century. The rise of One Nation reflects a cyclical pattern seen in other Western democracies, where economic crises and cultural backlash fuel far-right movements. Historical parallels in Europe and the US show that proportional representation can dilute extremist influence, but Australia’s system resists such reforms due to institutional inertia.
Australia’s electoral crisis is not merely a tactical dilemma between the Coalition and One Nation but a symptom of a deeper democratic malfunction rooted in a 20th-century electoral system ill-suited to 21st-century challenges.
The two-party dominance, inherited from a colonial-era design, now amplifies extremist influence while paralyzing governance, as seen in the rise of far-right movements across the West. Indigenous governance models, which prioritize collective well-being over partisan competition, offer a radical alternative to the adversarial politics that currently dominate. Cross-cultural comparisons—from New Zealand’s MMP system to Scandinavian coalition-building—demonstrate that proportional representation can dilute extremist agendas while increasing policy innovation. The path forward requires structural reform: adopting proportional representation, ranked voting, and institutional mechanisms to amplify marginalized voices, lest Australia’s democracy continue to erode under the weight of its own anachronistic design.