7paFcQ8w

1Introduction
2Australia’s federal government operates within the framework of a constitutional monarchy, heavily influenced by the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy but with additional influence from the American models of federalism and bicameralism. The chief governmental executive position of the nation - the Prime Minister - takes its influence largely from the Westminster model, typically being the leader of the political party with the most seats or the largest coalition of parties in the Australian Parliament’s lower house, the House of Representatives. The primary reason for this arrangement is to ensure that the Prime Minister will have the confidence of the lower house, and thus will be able to survive confidence and supply motions, an ability that is the mark of a strong government. 
3However, in Australia, the confidence behind the head of government is increasingly a point of contention - not just from Parliament as a whole, but more and more from the Prime Minister’s own party. Prime Ministers such as Tony Abbott have seen their parties elected to Parliament in sweeping majorities and yet have been later ousted by their own party only less than a year or two later. In fact, according to Anika Gauja of The Washington Post, the average term of an Australian Prime Minister has plummeted from 10 years in the 1960s to just 2.4 years in the 2010s. While frequent changes in power between heads of government is a common feature of most liberal democracies, Australia’s rate of replacement of the Prime Minister has become much higher than in other parliamentary systems. For example, during the period between 2010 and 2019, Canada saw one change of power, India saw one, Sweden saw one, Spain saw two, and yet in Australia five separate changes of power occurred, four of which were due to coup attempts by party members and only one of which was due to the loss of a general election. This uniqueness helps to frame the central research question for this essay: to what extent do key factors of Australia’s political culture contribute to the instability of the office of Prime Minister?
4The following sections - evaluations of Australia’s Westminster system, two-party political structure, system for leadership elections, and citizen engagement - will seek to provide evidence to support the assertion that the aforementioned factors do indeed contribute to the Australian Prime Minister’s outsized instability - instability being defined in this paper as a high rate of turnover in the office - compared to the heads of other liberal parliamentary democracies.
5The Westminster system
6	The Westminster model of parliamentary procedure - aptly named for its beginnings in Britain’s Parliament in Westminster - heavily shapes the conventions and conduct surrounding the office of Australia’s Prime Minister. Central to both this model and Australia’s political system is the requirement for the Prime Minister’s government to sustain motions of confidence and supply for it to remain operating as the nation’s government (confidence referring to a motion initiated by Parliament that states that the house no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister’s government to govern, thus bringing it down, and supply referring to budget votes) both of which require simple majorities in the House of Representatives (“House of Representatives”). This in itself can present a problem for a Prime Minister, however. If, for example, their government holds a minority of the total seats in the House, or dissidents from their own party (or coalition of parties) decide to turn against the government, a motion of non-confidence presented to the floor has the potential for success. If the House does declare its loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, a snap election could be called, with the potential of creating a premature electoral defeat for the Prime Minister’s ministry. This, however, while proposed multiple times, has never been successfully achieved in Australia. Instead, the House often treats consequential votes as pseudo-votes of confidence, and in the event of a government’s failure to pass such a bill, the government is often informally forced to resign or call a snap election (“House of Representatives”). For example, in 1941, Prime Minister Arthur Fadden lost a House vote concerning his government’s budget due to two dissident independent members of the House voting against the government. While this in itself did not technically force the Prime Minister and his ministry to resign, Fadden, who no longer had any money to operate his government with and support in the House to get his initiatives passed, was essentially forced to resign nonetheless (Souter 341).
7	In addition, loss of confidence or supply is not the only way to bring down a ministry prematurely through features of the Westminster system. The Governor-General of Australia, who is the representative of the Queen in Australia and thus holds the power to appoint or dismiss a Prime Minister’s mandate, technically holds these aforementioned powers as reserve powers - powers that are used sparingly (Twomey). While these are often not used in practice outside of the formal process of dismissing and appointing a Prime Minister after a change of power in a party leadership election or a general election, it can and has been used before outside of these established cases, most notably in 1975. After the Senate rejected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s budget, Governor-General John Kerr controversially and unexpectedly dismissed Whitlam’s ministry and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the Leader of the Opposition, as a caretaker Prime Minister until a snap election was eventually held the next month, returning Fraser as Prime Minister with a majority in the House (Bambrick 158).
8	While both of these methods, as evidenced by the time period of their examples, are frequently no longer successful, they provide an important context to contemporary affairs due to the fact that these are often used as threats by members of the opposition or those in the Prime Minister’s own party who stand in opposition to the ministry during events of strained relations. Both examples, for instance, happened after Prime Minister Scott Morrison lost a House vote on his legislation in early 2019 (Worthington). In addition, these methods also simply represent a facet of Australia’s political system that helps to contribute to the instability of the office of Prime Minister and the historical examples help to contextualize such methods.
9Political party structure
10On the federal level, Australia’s party politics operates within the ‘dominant two-party’ theory of partisan relations, as most elections are dominated by the presence of the Australian Labor Party on the left and the Coalition - the Liberal Party for most of the country along with the National Party for rural constituencies - on the right (Bambrick 148). Smaller parties, such as the Australian Democrats (before their demise) and the Green Party, have attempted to make inroads in federal politics with varying degrees of success (Bambrick 153-154). However, the only parties presently and historically who have had any real chance at controlling the office of the Prime Minister have been Labor and the Liberals. For this reason and due to their near-monopolization of national elections, both parties are heavily factionalized. For example, unions hold a strong factional position in Labor while conservatives have carved out their own faction within the Liberal Party (Sawer et al. 137-139).
11This factionalization is in fact more severe than in other parliamentary democracies such as France, Austria, and Denmark due to Australia’s two-party system. In such countries with a multi-party system, parties do not have to take up as many ideologies as they would in a two-party system, due to the more crowded nature of the political spectrum in countries with many parties. On the other hand, Australian political parties are forced to cover large swaths of the political spectrum and include many diverse ideologies due to the fact that the nation essentially has only one major party representing the broad left, and another representing the broad right (Nicholson et al. 290). In fact, according to a survey done by the University of New South Wales, 257 Australian students ranked key figures in each of Australia’s two major parties more diversely than other students’ rankings of their own countries’ parties’ leaders, owing to the diverse nature of factions and personalities within both of the two major Australian parties (Nicholson et al. 289).
12As a result of this feature of Australia’s political system, parties often have more strained relations between their members, which can present a problem for the Prime Minister when seeking confidence from his or her own party, particularly during times of crisis. If the Prime Minister cannot unite the multiple factions behind him or her, the results can be fatal at a confidence vote or internal party vote. This was most evident during the Liberal Party’s leadership crisis in 2018, during which incumbent Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, considered a member of the Liberals’ moderate faction, was challenged by Minister of Home Affairs Peter Dutton, considered a member of the more conservative faction. This was sparked by Turnbull’s combined decreasing popularity in polls and lower chances of defeating Labor at the next election, combined with a growing desire for a more conservative leader from the conservative faction. Surely enough, Turnbull was forced out in the second leadership election, as a result of Turnbull’s near-total loss of support from his party’s conservative faction (Chang).
13Australia’s political party system is relatively unique in that the country hosts a strong two-party system while at the same time also being characterized by the Westminster parliamentary model of government, one typically practiced in countries with a stronger multi-party system. While not completely alone in this regard on the world stage, combined with the noticeable factionalization of Australia’s two major parties, it does create a unique atmosphere that helps to further the instability of the office of Prime Minister when confidence is in doubt.
14Leadership spills
15	A central feature of Australia’s political party system is the holding of leadership elections to replace an outgoing leader of the party. Like many other countries using the Westminster system, the leader of the party in Parliament - and, if the party is in government, the Prime Minister by convention - is also the leader of the political arm of the party. For this reason, when a Prime Minister resigns, they also by convention resign their leadership commission. After the notice of resignation, a leadership election is then triggered to replace him or her and install a new leader of the party and a new Prime Minister simultaneously. In the case of a party in opposition, the process is exactly the same except that the leader being replaced and the new leader will not serve as Prime Minister; instead, they serve as the leader of their party in Parliament - and if they are the largest opposition party, the formal Leader of the Opposition (Bennister 73). 
16	A snap leadership election called without the voluntary resignation or death of the incumbent leader of the party is called a leadership spill or leadership challenge in Australian politics, often shortened to just a spill. These often do not occur after an election loss; rather, they are typically triggered by dissenting voices in the party gaining a following against the leadership at any point during the leader’s term, and can sometimes be called by the Prime Minister or leader themselves in an attempt to quell such opposition by defeating the opposition in a confidence vote, as was the case when Malcolm Turnbull faced Peter Dutton in 2018 (Gauja).
17	Spills used to be uncommon, with the overthrow of Robert Menzies by his own Liberals in 1941 separated from the next spill - the ousting of John Gorton by the same Liberals - by 30 years (Hartcher). However, as time has progressed, leadership spills have become an even more common, and increasingly expected, feature of Australian political life, with as many as 13 separate spills occurring during the 21st century as of the time of this writing in just the federal Liberals and Labor alone.
18	Unlike in many other parliamentary democracies, Australia’s major parties don’t hold public votes for the leadership in either a spill motion or a general leadership election (aside from Labor, who has recently introduced a public vote component to leadership elections, but this change has only come recently, in 2013). In fact, the motions to initiate a spill and each round of the election itself are most times hidden behind closed doors for only the parliamentary caucus to debate and vote on, with the only indication as to who the next leader will be only revealed at the formal announcement of the vote tally after the round or motion was conducted in secret (Ghazarian). This can present yet another factor in Australia’s political culture that contributes to the instability of the office of the Prime Minister, due to the fact that (as discussed in the previous point concerning Australia’s two-party system) factionalization can come heavily into play during a leadership spill. Since a public contest is not involved, personalities and factions can and often do take precedence over public interest, which are often more unpredictable than a public vote (Hetherington). This results in instability when the members and factions turn against the leader, resulting in the leader’s removal from their position, and if they are in government, the premiership. 
19	Primary motivations for initiating a spill are often electoral, and can derive from a loss of support for the leader’s party or simply a loss of support for the leader themselves in the polls. Polls often have a greater influence in Australia than in other nations due to the country’s three-year parliamentary terms, leaving party members more concerned for the party’s fate in relation to the next election during the incumbent’s term and more likely to overthrow the current leader if polls are trending downward (Hetherington). As Malcolm Turnbull said to justify his challenge to Tony Abbott’s leadership of the Liberal Party in September 2015, “[the Liberal Party has] lost 30 Newspolls in a row. It is clear that the people have made up their mind about Mr. Abbott’s leadership” (Turnbull). In other cases, they can come from desires for power by marginalized factions. In any case, the challengers are often members of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, further undermining the government and spurring instability from the inside (Hetherington).
20One example of a series of leadership spills that directly impacted the instability of the office of Prime Minister is the series of spills between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Julia Gillard between 2010 and 2013. While Rudd led Labor to a landslide in the 2007 general election, declining popularity after unpopular policies were pushed forward by his government and the increasing popularity of the new Liberal leader, Tony Abbott, led factions within the Labor caucus to begin to seek an alternative to Rudd in his deputy, Julia Gillard. Amid rising inconfidence in the government, a spill was scheduled between Rudd and Gillard. As it soon became clear that Rudd would not win re-nomination as leader at the spill, he resigned and Gillard became the Prime Minister unopposed (Rodgers). Due to Labor’s popularity rising again after the challenge, Gillard sought a snap general election in 2010. However, during the campaign, polls tightened, and Labor tied with the Liberals on election day, only eking out a majority with the support of the lone Green MP and three independent MPs. Rudd, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, began to be speculated to be planning a challenge to Gillard. Despite his denials, the rumors eventually became confirmed when he announced his loss of confidence in Gillard and his intention to run for leader (Griffiths, “Rudd Pledges Loyalty”). While the challenge was unsuccessful, discontent towards growing unpopularity of the Labor government continued to remain and eventually culminated in a third leadership spill initiated by cabinet minister Simon Crean’s calls for a leadership spill. As Rudd did not stand again, Gillard remained leader unopposed and the challenge failed (Griffiths, “As It Happened”). However, yet again, discontent remained and the fourth and final challenge of the Gillard-Rudd conflict was initiated due to some polls predicting a Liberal landslide in the next election along with further dissatisfaction with the Gillard government (Griffiths, “Rudd Prevails over Gillard”). Rudd, who decided to stand, won the spill, but he ultimately led the Labor Party to a landslide defeat in the 2013 general election. The repeated conflicts over marginalized factions, loss of caucus support, and loss of public support between Gillard and Rudd serve as a typical - albeit more dramatic - characterization of the underlying conflicts that initiate a spill, and serve as a clear example of instability in the office of Prime Minister as a result of a spill motion.
21Citizen engagement
22The final component of Australia’s political culture that contributes to the instability of the office of Prime Minister is the amount of citizen engagement in Australian politics. Along with most other internet-connected democracies, citizen journalism has spiked in popularity in Australia through social media such as YouTube and Twitter as an easy way for those not in the political or journalist classes to expose flaws in the government (Gauja). With an extra set of eyes on Australia’s leaders, partisan officials have become even more keen to introduce spill motions against scandal-ridden leaders in an attempt to protect their party’s reputation in the run-up to a general election.
23Such online sources like YouTube and Twitter also provide an outlet for easier dissemination of political news. Australians across the nation can learn of scandals and successes from Australia’s leaders faster than ever before. Users online can run their own policy campaigns and help to inspire nationwide protests or major changes in policy (“Internet”). This fact serves as one of the primary reasons for the exponential growth of spill motions in the 21st century, as since the electorate at-large has become more educated concerning political issues and policy, the people have become an even bigger factor in the considerations of party leadership on the viability of their leader and increased the chances of members capitulating to a spill to save their chances of re-election.
24However, Australia is also unique in regards to the engagement of its electorate. Unlike all other English-speaking nations and most of the rest of the world, Australia practices enforced compulsory voting - something only 10 other United Nations members practice (“Compulsory Voting”). Due to the extremely high turnout that this results in - 91 percent on average - significantly more of the electorate is engaging with the political scene, forcing party leadership to pay more attention to shifts in public opinion than in other parliamentary democracies, adding yet another reason for members of an increasingly unpopular party to seek to remove their leader and thus facilitate more instability in the office.
25From the increasing popularity of the internet for political means to the consistently high turnout elections Australia hosts as a result of its enforced compulsory voting policy, the Australian public is engaged with federal elections more than ever before. In light of this factor of Australia’s political culture, Members of Parliament needing a reason to force a Prime Minister out of office have one in the form of a public whose opposition is sparked by social media and is required by law to head to the polls.
26Conclusion
27Australia’s democracy, like most other parliamentary democracies, is a multifaceted organization with many factors at varying levels than can deliver a direct impact on the condition of its government. In the scope of this essay, this organization, composed of the people, the parties, and the system, can and do directly affect the degree of instability - or rate of turnover - of the office of the Prime Minister of Australia. 
28Continuously through Australian political history, instances of Prime Ministers being removed as a result of one or more of the aforementioned factors affecting the political scene has remained a constant factor. From Prime Minister John Gorton’s resignation as a result of a tied spill motion initiated due to falling election prospects and public and private discontent towards his government in 1971, to Turnbull’s removal in a spill motion in 2018 as a result of factionalization and electoral concerns in the lead up to the 2019 general election, the four factors outlined in this essay have had a marked impact on the instability of the office of the Australian Prime Minister.
29Through measures codified in law and established through convention, the Westminster system of which Australia’s government is based upon can directly affect the instability of its leader and the government as a whole. Through the broad nature of the two-party system and its resulting factionalization, the party political system can directly impact the Prime Minister’s instability by way of party conflict. Through the spills introduced as a result of such factionalization, the Prime Minister can be removed from office, directly increasing its instability. And finally, through mass media and mass turnout, the people can indirectly affect the instability of the head of government by pressuring party political officials to act. By direct and indirect means, it can be reasonably concluded that the aforementioned factors contribute to the instability of the office of Prime Minister to a great extent.
30While most of the factors - save for the closed-door style of leadership elections and the compulsory voting system, which are found sparingly around the world - can be found in some form in many democracies across the globe, Australia’s democracy has the unique combination of hosting all of these factors at potent levels together in one country, setting up a ripe environment for executive turnover in the nation.
31
32Word Count: 3514