Maurice Rickard argues that while a party exists to gain the power of government, this is not an absolute goal for a party. It is merely a goal to achieve something more fundamental and important to the party.

From the Parliamentary Library Paper;

It is sometimes argued that the underlying interest of a political party, as an organization, is to gain or maintain power. Certainly, this is an important and crucial interest. But it does not make sense for the fundamental goal of political parties to be power for its own sake. The true value of political power is as a means, a capacity to achieve something else that is valued more fundamentally. It is the realisation in society of this something else - the party's values, principles and ideals - that is most plausibly taken as the fundamental goal.

In systems with greater constitutional protections, such as Australia and America, we have seen parties use taxpayer money and administrative power arbitrarily in order to entrench the ruling party as the natural party of government. DIMIA was politicised for electoral purposes and it is turning out that Justice in the US was for the same.

Rickard argues that the politics has become pragmatic rather than ideological, which waters down the using government for something more 'fundamental'. Another truth of party based government in Australia is that a party leader has no authority until they have won an election. Until that point the party they lead runs somewhere between quiet disdain and anarchy. It is only winning elections that brings party discipline.

I lean toward the conclusion that parties exist in order to gain executive or legislative power - and once in such a place will use government in order to persist their current situation and advance their future electoral interests.

cam

Klaas Worldring has an article in Crikey on removing the major parties from the Senate. It carries the blurb of removing "the two party tyranny". I don't subscribe to crikey and that article is behind a paywall. I thought it may be an editorial headline, but Worldring has been active on Online Opinion and he has an article titled: Two party tyranny.

Firstly, there hasn't been a two-party system in the Senate for over twenty years because of the Australian Democrats who have invariably held the balance of power in the Senate. The Liberals having a majority is only recent. The last time that happened IIRC was a small period in Fraser's term after the Democrats got up and going.

Westminster has poor separation of powers, however, like the Washington system, the check and balances between branches have largely been led by party machines. The Australian Democrats, as a legislative party and without any reasonable executive aspirations - they don't have the numbers - acted as a party machine check and balance on consecutive Labor and Liberal governments.

If Labor wins the next federal election, which it may do, there will be a party machine check and balance on the Labor executive through the current Liberal Senate majority.

Worldring's article on the Two Party Tyranny is mainly about the single-member districts in the federal House of Representatives and how it enforces a duopoly. The UK has single-member districts but has three cornered contests between the Conservatives, Labor and the Liberal Democrats. There is significant third party representation in the UK Parliament. The difference is that the UK is first past the post.

I am of the opinion if there is to be single member districts then first past the post is the best mechanism. It may not produce condercet majority winners, but it does provide pluralism.

I still can't see why the major parties should be removed from the Senate. Party machine block voting is infuriating for parliament watchers, and makes much of the supposed deliberative debate senseless. Fortunately there are some who take the responsibility seriously. But the effect is minimal unless they have a majority of numbers - which is something that the major parties do well.

Political parties are specialists in the political process. Despite their small numbers - it is believed there are approximately 160,000 liberal party members - they are good at political organisation, raising money and getting candidates elected. Not to mention media management. As groups, they are devoted to achieving election, and the major parties consider themselves failures if they have not achieved government.

James Madison argued in Federalist No.10 that the forming of parties, or faction as he called them, is a result of having the liberty to form differing opinions. To remove the liberty or freedom of association is worse than people forming factions or parties.

The Australian Republican response is the same as Madison's; rather than ban parties, create a constitutional form of government which stops the violence of faction. Many of the political technologies developed by republicanism are expressly for this purpose.