The Dangerous Alliances of Australian Politics: A Commentary on the SA Liberals' Choice
In the murky waters of Australian politics, alliances are often forged in the shadows, driven by pragmatism rather than principle. The recent decision by South Australia’s Liberal opposition to preference One Nation over Labor in the upcoming state election is a case in point. What makes this particularly fascinating is not just the strategic calculus behind it, but the moral compromises it exposes.
The Pragmatic Playbook
From my perspective, the Liberals’ move to align with One Nation is a textbook example of political expediency. With polls suggesting One Nation could outpace the Liberals in voter support, the party sees an opportunity to secure more seats by leveraging One Nation’s growing influence. Personally, I think this is a risky gamble. By prioritizing short-term gains, the Liberals are aligning themselves with a party whose rhetoric often crosses the line into divisiveness and bigotry.
One thing that immediately stands out is the Liberals’ willingness to overlook Cory Bernardi’s controversial comments. Bernardi, One Nation’s upper house lead candidate, has a history of making statements that many find offensive, including his 2012 remarks linking gay marriage to bestiality. What many people don’t realize is that by refusing to condemn these comments, the Liberals are tacitly endorsing them. This raises a deeper question: How far are mainstream parties willing to go to win elections, and at what cost to their own values?
The Moral Calculus
Liberal leader Ashton Hurn’s response to Bernardi’s comments was telling. She dismissed them as his responsibility, not hers, and insisted that the decision to preference One Nation was purely strategic. In my opinion, this is a cop-out. Leadership isn’t just about making tough decisions; it’s about standing up for what’s right, even when it’s inconvenient. By distancing herself from Bernardi’s remarks, Hurn is avoiding accountability for her party’s alliance with a figure whose views are widely condemned.
What this really suggests is a broader trend in Australian politics: the normalization of extreme rhetoric. When parties like the Liberals prioritize electoral success over ethical consistency, they contribute to a political culture where divisive language becomes acceptable. This isn’t just about Bernardi or One Nation; it’s about the erosion of standards in public discourse.
The Broader Implications
If you take a step back and think about it, the Liberals’ decision reflects a larger shift in global politics. Across the world, traditional parties are increasingly aligning with populist and extremist groups to stay relevant. In Australia, this trend is particularly concerning given the country’s history of multiculturalism and social progress. By preferencing One Nation, the Liberals are sending a message that they’re willing to sacrifice these values for political gain.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the reaction from other leaders. Labor, the Greens, and SA Best have all condemned Bernardi’s comments, with figures like Premier Peter Malinauskas and Greens MLC Robert Simms calling them out as divisive and incompatible with Australian values. This contrast highlights the Liberals’ isolation in their decision, which could backfire if voters perceive them as out of touch with mainstream sentiment.
The Human Cost
What often gets lost in these political calculations is the human impact. Ahmed Zreika from the Islamic Society of SA eloquently pointed out the harm caused by Bernardi’s comments about Muslims. His invitation to Bernardi for an open-minded debate was not just a gesture of goodwill but a challenge to confront ignorance with understanding. This raises a deeper question: Are politicians like Bernardi and Hanson truly interested in dialogue, or are they more invested in stoking fear and division?
From my perspective, the Liberals’ alliance with One Nation isn’t just a strategic misstep; it’s a moral failure. By refusing to condemn hateful rhetoric, they’re contributing to a toxic political environment that marginalizes already vulnerable communities.
Looking Ahead
As the March 21 election approaches, the Liberals’ decision will undoubtedly shape the campaign narrative. Personally, I think this could be a defining moment for the party. If they succeed in leveraging One Nation’s support, it could embolden similar alliances in the future. But if they face a backlash, it might force a reckoning about the kind of politics they want to represent.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the potential for long-term consequences. If mainstream parties continue to normalize alliances with extremist groups, it could fundamentally alter Australia’s political landscape. This isn’t just about one election; it’s about the kind of society we want to build.
Final Thoughts
In the end, the Liberals’ decision to preference One Nation is more than a strategic move—it’s a reflection of deeper issues in Australian politics. It’s about the tension between pragmatism and principle, between short-term gains and long-term values. As voters, we have to ask ourselves: What kind of politics do we want to support? And what kind of society do we want to create?
Personally, I think this election is a wake-up call. It’s a reminder that politics isn’t just about winning; it’s about standing up for what’s right, even when it’s hard. And if we’re not careful, the compromises we make today could shape the future in ways we’ll regret tomorrow.
