I’m sure I’m not alone in watching the Australian elections. However, I’ve paid less attention to the boxing matches between ScoMo and Albo, instead, focussing on the minor parties that offered an alternative to the two big parties. There were two lessons that I think we can learn from them.
The role of alternative media
I have spoken about the media revolution that is currently happening, with our mainstream media becoming a government propaganda machine (much like RT). The mainstream media with its audience decides which issues are important and which people are relevant to New Zealand society. Some media academics argue that the media have what is called ‘agenda-setting power’. One of the three dimensions of power proposed by political scholar Steven Lukes, they argue that the media has the power to decide what issues are discussed and what are not discussed.
This is coupled with their power to decide who is relevant and who is not. In the case of elections, this includes the different parties and political figures who are granted access to their platforms. It is from this platform that, partially, the public has an awareness of who they can vote for.
I suggest that this agenda-setting power of the media has evolved into something that I would call ‘mainstream power’. Because, as the arbiters of truth and facts, they decide which issues are legitimate and who are the legitimate authorities to speak to these issues. These issues on the media agenda are called ‘mainstream issues’ while the ones outside the media agenda become ‘fringe’ issues. The same goes for political parties, with the ones who discuss the issues on the media agenda are known as ‘mainstream’ parties, while the ones outside are known as the ‘fringe’, ‘extreme’ or ‘far left/right’ parties. Of course, to uphold the illusion of balance and fair reporting some parties outside the ‘mainstream’ are invited, as long as they discuss the agenda items or match the ideology of the media. Examples of mainstream issues include the economy, climate change and social justice.
Therefore it shouldn’t be a surprise that the media also decides who the voters get to see. In Australia’s case it was the ABC and 9News moderating the debates between the two major party leaders Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese.
Before, this was possible because of the control over technology and communication networks. Whether it was the printing press, the radio transmitter or the TV transmitter, the people that controlled the technology controlled who and what could be broadcast on it.
This has changed with the internet, which has granted everyone the platform to broadcast their views without filtering from the owners of technology. This has also allowed the rise of alternative media that, up to that point, had to fight for control of the technology. Now, with the internet and current tech, anyone with a phone and laptop can run a media company. This has been further bolstered by livestreaming, which allows individuals to film what is happening in real time, without edits or commentary.
In Australia, we have seen this with Rebel News and Real Rukshan offering alternative media outlets that provide an alternative narrative to the mainstream media. They provide a platform for voices that the mainstream media don’t listen to and with the recent elections have provided a platform for the political figures the mainstream media won’t allow, including the Liberal Democrats, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, independents, Informed Medical Choices Party, Great Australia Party and the United Australia Party.
These parties were banned from ABC, so therefore independent media hosted them on their platforms and even organised debates for these parties.
The same thing did happen in New Zealand. Mark Thomas organised debates for the 2020 elections, inviting New Conservative, Outdoors. Social Credit, ONE, Advance New Zealand and Vision New Zealand to express themselves.
It is possible with the current technology for the BFD, the Platform, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Examiner to offer a platform and perhaps organise debates with some of the minor parties. Whether that is New Nation Party, Democracy New Zealand, Freedom and Outdoors or Social Credit. If the media refuses to allow these parties in, then it is the duty of alternative media to take up that role.
The dependency of the citizen journalist on their audience means they must uphold the fourth estate by holding these political figures to account and challenging them, even if the political figures agree with the citizen journalist. See the way Avi Yemeni and Real Rukshan moderated their electoral debates as an example.
There might be some benefit for standing for the same platform
There is some debate in New Zealand whether the different freedom fighters should unite into one campaign or campaign separately. Some believe that a big tent party could be possible in order to win seats in parliament. The reasoning is simple: don’t split the vote, keep the votes together and hope for the best.
The challenge to this is the political incohesiveness of the different factions. The freedom movement is fractured between anarchists, alternative-medicine hippies and Christian conservatives. These are people that may agree on the mandates but precious little on other things.
The Australian elections showed that it is possible for different people on the same platform to campaign on the same issues. All the freedom-focused parties were willing to stand together while respectfully disagreeing with each other. This was apparent in the minor party debates I watched, in which they remained civil despite their difference in views on other issues. Imagine if these parties interacted the same way in parliament: this would be much more refreshing in contrast to the squabbling we currently see from our incumbent government. The polling showed that both Labor and Liberal had a much lower approval rating than usual. In fact, the results of the elections showed that the Labor Party had enough to win but not the overwhelming majority they needed to completely dominate the House of Representatives, possibly because both parties had some of their votes taken off by the minor parties offering an alternative across the political spectrum.
I could see Social Credit and Outdoors taking the left-wing vote with their economic policies. Most people just want a solution to the rising living costs and being able to afford things. A quick look at Social Credit and Outdoors shows them offering more financial assistance than even the Greens – this is coupled with a much more ambitious tax policy. I could see Matt King taking the centre vote with his focus on common sense and I could see New Nation Party and New Conservative taking the right-wing vote with their promised tax cuts and policies to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship along with more sensible government spending on defence and police. This is also coupled with the fact that all these parties either oppose the woke brigade or stay out of the culture war. Yes, they will compete with each other for the freedom vote, but at least they can build a brand that people can rely on and show a political cohesiveness, rather than something reminiscent of Jim Anderton’s Alliance of the ’90s (and we know how that went).
These are the lessons we can learn from the Australian elections.