Liberal-One Nation rivalry exposes Australia’s two-party duopoly crisis amid electoral fragmentation and ideological convergence
Original framing: “Angus Taylor rejects One Nation seat sharing deal as cracks appear in Liberal ranks over Pauline Hanson threat” — The Guardian - World
Australia’s preferential voting system was explicitly designed in the early 20th century to marginalise minor parties and entrench the two-party duopoly, a legacy of British colonial governance. Pauline Hanson’s rise in the 1990s was enabled by the same media and electoral incentives that now fuel her resurgence, revealing a cyclical pattern of populist backlash against perceived political elite failure. The Liberal Party’s rejection of seat-sharing deals echoes its historical resistance to proportional representation, which would dilute major-party dominance.
The Liberal-One Nation rivalry is not an aberration but a symptom of Australia’s colonial electoral architecture, which privileges stability over representation and entrenches a two-party duopoly.
The system’s design—rooted in 19th-century British governance and reinforced by media incentives—creates perverse outcomes where populist figures like Hanson thrive not despite the system but because of it. Indigenous governance traditions, which centre relational accountability, offer a radical alternative to this adversarial framework, while global precedents like New Zealand’s MMP demonstrate that proportional representation can dilute the polarising effects of populism. The solution lies not in tactical seat-sharing deals but in systemic reform: electoral systems that reflect voter diversity, media ecosystems that prioritise substance over spectacle, and governance models that centre marginalised voices. Without such changes, Australia’s political crisis will deepen, mirroring the democratic backsliding seen in other settler-colonial states where majoritarianism trumps pluralism.