Why conservative minor parties, specifically One Nation, do not typically merge.

Polling Station
AI Photo by Grok

There are several reasons why conservative minor parties in Australia, including One Nation, often resist joining forces:

• Distinct Ideologies and Policy Differences: While broadly "conservative," these parties often have specific policy planks or ideological focuses that differentiate them. For example, One Nation has historically focused heavily on issues like immigration, national sovereignty, and skepticism of climate change, often with a populist tone. Other conservative minor parties might prioritize different aspects, such as religious freedom, family values (like the resurrected Family First Party), or specific economic policies. Merging would require significant compromises on these core tenets, which can be difficult for parties built around distinct platforms.

• Personality Politics and Leadership Ambition: Minor parties often revolve around strong, charismatic leaders. Pauline Hanson is the quintessential example for One Nation. The leaders of other minor parties also have their own support bases and ambitions. Merging would inevitably lead to questions of leadership, power-sharing, and who would represent the new entity, which can be a major hurdle.

• Targeted Constituencies: Each minor party often appeals to a specific segment of the electorate. While there might be overlap, they may see themselves as best serving their unique niche. A merger could risk alienating some of their core supporters who are drawn to their particular brand or message.

• Electoral System Dynamics (especially the Senate): Australia's preferential voting system, particularly for the Senate, can allow minor parties to gain representation even with a relatively small primary vote by harvesting preferences from other parties. This system can, paradoxically, reduce the imperative for them to merge, as they can still achieve some parliamentary presence independently. Historically, the Senate has been the chamber where minor parties have had the most success and influence.

• Maintaining Brand Identity: Parties invest considerable effort in building their brand and recognition. A merger could dilute this identity and confuse voters, especially if the new name or platform doesn't resonate as strongly.

• Past Failures of Mergers: While less common for conservative minor parties, the history of political mergers in Australia (such as the formation of the Liberal National Party in Queensland from the Liberal and National parties) has shown that while successful at a state level, it doesn't always translate into a full federal merger, and even then, distinct identities can remain within the larger entity. The attempt to merge Family First into Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservatives, which ultimately dissolved, highlights the difficulties of such endeavors.

• "Watchdog" or Protest Role: Some minor parties see their role as providing an alternative voice or acting as a "watchdog" against the major parties. Merging into a larger, more conventional party might compromise this perceived independence and appeal to voters.

In essence, while a merger might seem strategically beneficial from an external perspective (e.g., combining votes), the internal dynamics, ideological differences, and the nature of Australia's electoral system often make such alliances difficult to achieve and sustain for conservative minor parties.