The machinations of the Australian Labor Party machine are within the highlight again this week when Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman switched sides to support a Greens-backed motion calling on the Australian Senate to “recognise the State of Palestine”.
By switching sides, Payman violated the concept of party solidarity. She was subsequently excluded from the Labor Party parliamentary group for an indefinite period.
So what does this idea of party solidarity really mean within the Labour Party and the way did it come about?
What is party solidarity?
Simply put, Committee is the group of MPs who make up a political party. It includes Cabinet ministers (or “frontbenchers”) and all others (“backbenchers”) in each the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Before the formation of the Federation and the Australian Labor Party at federal level, solidarity throughout the caucus had already taken root. The first meeting of the Labor Caucus was held in New South Wales in 1891. made a very important decision: The members would commit themselves to following the bulk decision and voting as a unified group.
The organizational structure of the party is formalized within the Constitution. It gives the Labor Party at federal level the ability to take decisions on behalf of the group in group meetings, particularly on questions or matters that will not be the topic of national program, conference or executive decisions. In this specific case, the “majority decision of the group” have to be “binding on all members of Parliament”.
In addition, there’s a proper obligation that requires all Labour MPs to support the bulk decision of the caucus, even in the event that they have individually voted against the bulk in a caucus meeting. This obligation has been in place because the formation of state Labour parties before federation, but was briefly formalised inside. Federal Ministry of Labour in 1902.
This enduring concept of factional solidarity has its origins within the party's trade union roots as a mass party, where collective majority decision-making required solidarity to drive the movement forward. This also explains why it’s a more institutionalised element of the Labor Party in comparison with other parties.
Other parties also allow this in a less formalised way. For example, neither the Liberal Party nor the National Party have a proper pledge prohibiting crossing party lines, although this is mostly politically frowned upon.
Theory vs. Practice
The same rules also state that the party is sure by the choices made within the Labor Party's National Programme, a set of theoretically binding political principles to which the parliamentary wing of the party must submit. The National Programme is the output of the Labor Party's triennial conferences, that are made up of federal and state party leaders, elected state delegates and Young Labor Party delegates.
On the difficulty of Israel and Palestine, the newest platform specifically calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state and expects that this issue shall be a key priority for the Australian Government.
The tension, nevertheless, lies within the timing of the adoption of those measures, which is on the discretion of the Labor caucus and the party leadership. According to the party conventions, Payman could subsequently not override the bulk decision of the caucus, even when it was in direct contradiction to the party manifesto. Essentially, what the caucus says is what counts.
Mick Tsikas/AAP
It could be very rare for Labour MPs to desert their group's solidarity and take the party side (when someone votes against their party on a specific issue by siding with a counter motion). Research shows Between February 1950 and April 2019, only 29 Labour MPs switched parties. By comparison, 185 Liberal politicians did so in the identical period.
When it is completed by Labour MPs, it’s more common for this to occur while Labour is in opposition. It can also be normally done in full knowledge that they may face expulsion from the party as a consequence.
All decisions have to be discussed in caucus before a final decision is made. Once the choice is made, all members in Parliament must vote for it, no matter their very own political position on the difficulty.
This just isn’t all the time easy for MPs. In recent years, the instance of same-sex marriage has been a specific sore point for certain MPs, akin to current Foreign Minister Penny Wong. Although Wong didn’t support the bulk party's opposition on the difficulty in 2004, she ultimately decided to follow party rules.
The concept of caucus solidarity has remained unchanged for over a century, but Labour today faces greater cultural and political challenges and a more diverse electorate than in its early years.
Payman is playing on the pressure points of a mass party that, one might say, must evolve. But this concept of strict party discipline is inherent within the concept of a mass party like Labour. It raises questions on the longer term of a celebration that has its roots within the nineteenth century staff' movement and can shape key political and social issues within the twenty first century.
image credit : theconversation.com