We are a deeply divided society. Polarisation, accompanied by confusion and disorganisation, is now the distinguishing feature of politics both inside and outside Parliament. The current sharp divisions have been building for some time.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
There are many aspects to these deep divisions, including over climate change, but two quite different elements were front and centre this time: COVID-related restrictions and religious freedom. While thousands of protesters against vaccination mandates (and many other things) descended on Parliament House last week, it was not their disparate concerns which sharply divided the parliamentarians inside, but another battle over the government's religious discrimination and freedom bills.
The Convoy to Canberra should not be dismissed just as right-wing extremism. It also represented general fatigue, anger and confusion circulating more widely in the community about the various impacts on our lives of COVID. Extremists played on the confusion and ignorance of a larger section of society.
The protesters' angst was notable for its apparent disconnect not just from the normal parliamentary business inside the building, but from the views of the wider Australian community on fighting the pandemic. The protesters were outsiders with no immediate impact on government policies.
The protest movement did have some inside connections, however, with reactionary backbench Coalition members. Those members included the well-known Queensland MP, George Christensen, and two little-known senators, Gerard Rennick from Queensland, and Alex Antic from South Australia. Earlier they had threatened non-compliance with the government over its legislative program. Now they supported and encouraged the anti-vaccination mandate protesters. More predictably, so did Pauline Hanson's One Nation party and Craig Kelly and Clive Palmer's United Australia Party.
The religious freedom controversy was a more traditional parliamentary issue. It caused turmoil in government ranks when five moderate Coalition MPs crossed the floor and derailed the legislation. It was then withdrawn by an unrepentant Prime Minister, in a humiliating failure to honour his 2019 election promise. It revealed deep polarisation over values and beliefs within Coalition ranks.
The conservative/liberal divide within the Liberal Party has long been understood as an uneasy but manageable alliance within a "broad church". This was John Howard's expressed view. But there is more at stake now. Factional politics in the party, based on these divisions, has apparently paralysed the party preselection process in NSW, only months before a federal election. Senators Rennick and Antic are themselves not just the product of random factional politics in their states, but the tip of the conservative iceberg within the Liberals. They represent powerful forces within the party membership who are clearly content with the reactionary stance of these renegades.
The failure of the religious discrimination bill was also evidence not just of parliamentary fragmentation, especially but not restricted to the Coalition parties, but also of deep divisions within the wider community.
Such community divisions over religious freedom were partly demonstrated by clashes between conservative church lobbyists, such as the Australian Christian Lobby and Christian schools' organisations, and the human rights and LGBTQI+ movements. These have become a feature of Australian politics, culminating in the same-sex marriage debate. Conservative Christians, encouraged by Scott Morrison, are a growing force within the Coalition party rooms and state branches.
This social fragmentation was also demonstrated by disunity within the so-called faith communities themselves. Conservative and progressive Christians differed strongly, evidenced by the sharp clashes between Sydney Catholic conservatives and their critics, like the St Vincent de Paul Society. Christian parents and principals were also at odds during the Citipointe Christian College controversy in Brisbane, when the ultra-orthodox school contract imposed on the school community led to the principal stepping down amid uproar. The Prime Minister then disowned that approach.
MORE JOHN WARHURST:
The issues behind the anti-vaccination protest and the religious freedom debacle have not been resolved and will linger on. The former has been brushed aside by the Prime Minister with empty platitudes about the democratic right to protest and his failure to take any responsibility for mandates. He blamed state governments. Some Labor representatives were more critical of the excesses of protesters.
The religious freedom bill is in limbo. Morrison tells his "faithful" that he was right to have a go, without any admission of fault regarding the absurd way he left the promised bill until the last minute. Rather, he claims he sought to unify the community around a worthy goal. Instead, his efforts inflamed further disunity. Labor made sympathetic nods, giving no commitments to any real action if it ever assumes responsibility.
Polarisation has now gone beyond heathy differences of opinion. It can't be papered over, and will not go away. Many citizens believe they are disrespected and forgotten by those holding power and authority. Good leaders should respond.
Yet society doesn't really utilise the tools available to address the many dimensions of division. This applies to sectors like political parties and faith communities. Suggestions like listening to each other, dialogue and compromise seem futile in an atmosphere of cultural conflict. Effective leadership by the Prime Minister is sadly lacking.
Election campaigns are one traditional opportunity to address such differences by taking the pulse of the community; but they are not up to the task in an era of polarisation. The forthcoming federal election will probably divide people further rather than begin to bring them together. Independent candidates may be one solution; almost certainly the major party campaigns will not be.
This is because campaigning politicians will largely not learn long-term lessons from events such as the protests and the parliamentary failures; instead they will seek to gain short-term political advantage.
- John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University and a regular columnist.