Labor’s stunning election victory has raised many questions, not least of them being the rise—and perhaps fall—of “mandate theory.” What does it mean for the Albanese government going forward? Political theorists and commentators are examining whether the party’s win provides it with a legitimate authority to implement its proposed policies, particularly in relation to its superannuation policy. This debate has been close to the heart of Donald Horne, legendary Australian author and public intellectual. He dove deep into mandate theory in 2001.
Donald Horne is perhaps most well-known for his prescient book of social criticism, “The Lucky Country.” He contended that political parties don’t enjoy an unqualified mandate to govern simply upon winning elections. He claimed that a party only wins the privilege to govern for a short time—which is often a few years. In Sojourner Truth’s America, Horne offers a serious, multifaceted understanding of political legitimacy. This perspective cuts through the conventional wisdom that an election victory bestows unchallenged power.
The Concept of Mandate Theory
Mandate theory — the idea that an election gives a particular government the right to carry out its policy platform — only goes so far. This right is time-limited. This idea has been deeply entrenched in the political discourse within Australia, especially following major elections. Horne undermines the conventional wisdom that this theory makes voter support seem simple and straightforward. He notes that most voters of a governing party do not authentically support all of the winning party’s platforms.
In 1987, Horne articulated his belief that “Australia made its choice with its eyes open and the Government should now be allowed to deliver.” Voters know exactly what they’re getting. As the argument goes, once elected, governments must be free to pursue their agendas without retribution in between elections. That doesn’t mean a blank check on their authority; instead, it places the federal government’s power in the context of accountability.
Defenders of Labor are loud and proud in current debates. They claim that the party’s landslide electoral victory provides it with an unequivocal mandate to proceed to implement its controversial superannuation policy. They cite the unprecedented magnitude of the victory as evidence on which to base their optimism. This would indicate that the electorate has accepted Labor’s case for fiscal responsibility.
Historical Context and Recent Precedents
Case studies in history show what happens when mandate theory meets real life. This reformer, John Howard, actually won the 1998 election in a stunning upset. Despite losing the popular vote and the two-party-preferred vote, he was miraculously able to win more seats than Labor. To critics, this was enough to have hobbled any assertion of a mandate beyond questioning it.
And the media of the time was reflecting that growing outrage on both sides of the political aisle. The Sydney Morning Herald asserted, “No assertions from Labor … can alter the fact that John Howard and the Coalition won the 1998 Federal election with an unquestioned mandate to govern.” Similarly, The Age reinforced that “the second Howard Government… is right to insist that it does have a mandate to implement its electoral program.”
These historical precedents lead to several crucial questions about how mandates are viewed and used by the ruling party. The backlash against Howard’s government was severe. It was heavily supported by media organizations that claimed that the party should be allowed to rule according to its number of seats, rather than its vote share.
Current Implications for Labor
Labor’s strong electoral victory has given it a healthy leeway—likely three to six years—to implement its agenda. The Coalition has invested more than 15 years fighting to make sure this doesn’t happen. Now, it needs to calibrate its work to the all-new political alignment. Observers note that the Albanese government can draw parallels with Robert Menzies’ framework of full employment, which he maintained after his 1949 election win and which served him well electorally for 16 years.
Geoff Wilson and Tim Wilson, who attacked Labor’s franking credits policy at 2019 election. Hidden in the folds of their comments are the manifest tensions around mandate pay inequity. Geoff Wilson is equally adamant in support of mandate theory. He argues that governments should be allowed to deliver on their electoral mandates, free from arbitrary meddling.
The political atmosphere today is creating unprecedented pressure on Labor. They need to follow through on their superannuation policy if they are to stick to their much needed broader electoral agenda. Those still on the inside argue that their win gives them a strong mandate and voter support to do just that.
“The only mandate won in an election is a mandate to be the government. A government does not win a mandate to shut down opposition to its policies.” – Unnamed editorial writer
The Albanese administration appears poised to leverage this perceived mandate while navigating potential challenges from opposition parties and interest groups. We know that Labor is working industriously to implement its reforms. Its eventual success will come entirely on how well it continues to engage with critics and meet voter expectations.
