How fascism works

A break of sorts this week for Liberal leader Sussan Ley, as media attention has switched to her Coalition partner, the Nationals, with the announcement by its former leader Barnaby Joyce that he will not be recontesting his seat at the next election. His statement that he would “now consider all options” is widely being taken as code that he intends to switch to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

Hanson’s career in national politics goes back almost exactly thirty years; she was endorsed as Liberal candidate for Oxley (which she won, although only after she had been disendorsed) in November 1995. She founded One Nation a little over a year later, in February 1997. Yet despite this long experience, the Australian political class seems still to be strangely lacking in appreciation of what One Nation is.

Back in 2017, just after One Nation had returned from a long dormant period, I pointed out Australia’s reluctance to take note of overseas comparisons: “We think of ourselves as sui generis; a former fish-and-chip shop owner from Ipswich is a national curiosity, not a copycat Mussolini.” But as has only become clearer since then, One Nation is very much a typical far-right party. It sounds all the themes that have become familiar across much of the world in the last decade: protectionist, anti-immigration, anti-feminist, anti-intellectual.

But it’s not just the policies – in fact the policies can be an eclectic mix – it’s the style. Anyone who’s studied the 1930s knows that there’s a distinctive way that fascist parties look and behave. Some of it doesn’t quite fit One Nation: there are no storm troopers in nice shiny uniforms, for example, but that’s probably a cultural difference; those things just wouldn’t play in Australia. In other respects, though, the similarities are quite strong. I want to mention just two, with an eye to what they might say about Joyce’s prospects.

The first is personalism: fascist movements form around a leader, and loyalty to the leader is everything. The leader may not superficially embody the movement’s ideals (Hitler had a decidedly un-Aryan appearance, Franco was short and effeminate, Hanson is a woman leading an anti-feminist party), but their word is law nonetheless. Strong rival personalities never last: either they split off or they are eliminated (sometimes literally).

One Nation has followed the model. Over almost thirty years, anyone who looked like rivalling Hanson or demanding democratic control of the party has either been forced out or left in despair; there’s only room for one führer. Since we already know that Joyce is unhappy playing second fiddle to anyone, his chance of surviving for long in One Nation would seem slim.

The other trait, which to some extent works in the opposite direction, is convergence. Far-right parties come from many different places – way back in 2009 I surveyed the disparate antecedents of the European far right – but they seem to instinctively recognise one another. They often fight over territory, but they are also capable of downplaying what might seem to be significant differences in the service of a common cause.

So, for example, the Nazis aided Franco in the Spanish civil war, even though Franco was a devout Catholic while Hitler was a pagan who was in conflict with the Catholic church. Such philosophical differences could be disregarded in light of the common project of destroying democracy. We’re seeing the same sort of alliances now in Europe, with otherwise very different parties uniting around larger issues such as opposition to the European Union.

One Nation has gone the same way: having started out as something very distinctively Australian, it now seems much more like part of a worldwide movement. Ironically enough for a party based on hatred of foreigners, its policies often look as if they are being read from an international script. Climate denial, for example, which was barely mentioned in the party’s early days, has become a central theme: something of which Joyce will thoroughly approve.

There’s also been convergence between One Nation and the Coalition parties, a topic that we’ve covered here a number of times. Neither the Liberals nor the Nationals can yet be called a far-right party, but elements within both clearly aim to move in that direction. Joyce’s decision can be seen as a sign that the shift isn’t happening as quickly as he’d like, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening at all.

For other far-right sympathisers within the Coalition parties, Joyce’s departure is a probably a plus. As Bernard Keane pointed out the other day, he has been much more a liability than an asset, and they will be happy enough to see him occupied in a losing struggle with Hanson for control of One Nation rather than making life more complicated within the National Party. And even if they all end up in different parties, we know that those on the far right are driving in the same direction.

We’ve been here before.