The price of appeasement

In our end of year assessment of leadership in Australian politics, we look at the performance of the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese.

Anthony Albanese entered the prime ministership in 2022 with a wave of enthusiasm, political capital, and a mandate to lead a government that would depart from the divisive and reactionary politics of the preceding decade provided by the Liberal and National parties. For many, his rise symbolised the potential for a progressive era defined by competence, fairness, and transformative policy.

Yet, as his tenure progresses, this potential seems to have dissipated, leaving a trail of disenchantment among the electorate and a stagnation in political momentum. The reasons for this decline are complex, but a significant factor lies in Albanese’s approach to governance: an apparent overreach to appease a spectrum of political forces, especially the Liberal Party, at the expense of consolidating the ideals of the Labor government. The electorate voted for a Labor government to govern like a Labor government, not to masquerade as Liberal Party-lite and a conservative blancmange.

While unquestionably maintaining a level of competence in managing the economy during challenging times – at the moment, Australia is the only nation in the world with the combination of the three critical factors of inflation below 3 per cent, unemployment below 4 per cent and median wealth per adult above US$250,000 (and the economy might end up being the only issue that matters to the electorate, with everything else kept to the periphery) – the Albanese government has suffered from a lack of decisiveness and clarity on key issues. This vacuum of boldness has allowed external pressures – cost-of-living crises amplified by media narratives and a political opposition perpetually framing the government as inept – to erode its public standing.

The slow but noticeable drift in public opinion, as reflected in two-party-preferred polling, highlights an electorate increasingly disillusioned with what they perceive as a lack of vision and leadership. Labor’s initial edge throughout 2022 and most of 2023 has all but evaporated, and while the Coalition remains far from securing an election-winning position, the numbers don’t paint a great picture for the government, and the Labor Party’s inability to dominate the political landscape against a visibly fragmented opposition does highlight strategic missteps.

One of the most glaring criticisms of Albanese’s leadership is his inability to leverage his political capital effectively. Instead of focusing his energy on transformative projects and clearly delineating Labor’s values from those of the Coalition, his government has often opted for compromise, leaving it vulnerable to criticism from all sides. This approach has alienated key segments of his base, including progressive voters who had high hopes for change.

Policies such as AUKUS highlight this conundrum where, even though this is a Morrison-era project that was implemented with haste – and with no obvious benefit to Australia – it is a project the Labor government now needs to manage but has done little to rework this flawed policy. While New Zealand Labour has distanced itself from the pact – albeit from opposition and not directly a part of AUKUS – and gained domestic support in doing so, the Albanese government has clung to a highly controversial and costly deal that not only lacks widespread public support but also contradicts Labor’s ideals of diplomacy and independence in foreign policy.

This pattern of acquiescence is not confined to defence policy. The National Anti-Corruption Commission, heralded as a landmark Labor achievement, has proven largely ineffective throughout 2024, offering little in the way of meaningful action against corruption. This failure has undermined a core promise of Albanese’s platform and highlighted a broader issue of political mismanagement. Rather than wielding his position as an opportunity to reshape the political and ethical landscape, the Prime Minister appears more concerned with maintaining the status quo, a strategy that has only bred further disenchantment.

For a seasoned politician with nearly three decades in public life, Albanese’s inability to anticipate political fallout or pre-emptively address emerging challenges is difficult to comprehend. The Prime Minister’s tendency to “spread too thin” – an effort to appeal to everyone – has left him appealing to few. The erosion of support from the left, centre, and right has created a vacuum that neither Albanese nor his ministry seems to want to fill, and the Labor government’s inability to counter media hostility or shift the narrative in its favour shows a strategic acumen that is in short supply.

This approach not only weakens the Labor Party but also fails to challenge the Coalition meaningfully. The Liberal Party’s self-inflicted wounds – ranging from a lack of cohesive leadership under Peter Dutton to internal ideological rifts – should have provided Albanese with ample opportunity to consolidate his position. Instead, his government’s deference has allowed the opposition to gain ground despite offering little in the way of compelling alternatives. Even as the Coalition flounders, the absence of a solid vision from Labor leaves the door open for worse political actors to rise, perpetuating a cycle of mediocrity and reactionary governance.

Albanese’s leadership throughout 2024 represents a paradox: a competent government on paper that has failed to inspire or galvanise the electorate. His strategy of accommodation and appeasement, particularly toward a Liberal Party that has shown no willingness to reciprocate, has hamstrung his ability to deliver the transformative change that many hoped for. The result is a government that, while technically capable, lacks the boldness and clarity needed to truly resonate with the Australian public.

The statesman who forgot the game of politics

Albanese’s approach – a measured, respectful demeanour – has arguably worked to his detriment in a combative environment of contemporary Australian politics that rewards cunning, strategic aggression, and the ability to dominate the political narrative. It’s hard to imagine former Prime Ministers Bob Hawke or Paul Keating offering too many olive branches to Andrew Peacock or John Howard in the 1980s or providing undeserved respect: they knew too well that competence and playing their brand of politics hard was a crucial combination in being able to achieve their political agendas and remain in office for well over a decade.

This disconnect is particularly pointed when contrasted with the unabashed hostility and culture war tactics employed by Dutton and the Liberal Party. In trying to rise above the fray, Albanese has allowed his opponents to set the terms of engagement, missing opportunities to define his leadership and the Labor government’s agenda with strength and clarity.

One of the most glaring examples of this miscalculation is Albanese’s treatment of Dutton. Rather than applying sustained political pressure to expose the Opposition Leader’s policy vacuum and divisive rhetoric, Albanese has often opted for bipartisanship and restraint. The admonishment of Minister for Environment Tanya Plibersek in 2022 for her quip comparing Dutton to Voldemort was an early sign of this strategy.

While intended to elevate the political discourse, this approach has instead conferred an unearned legitimacy upon Dutton’s leadership and has allowed him to maintain a foothold in the political arena, buoyed by a media ecosystem eager to amplify his divisive, reactionary message. Dutton is a political leader whose strategy for success is to engage in casual and overt racism, endless culture wars and destroy the social and political fabric of society for his personal political gain: why not let the public see him for who he truly is?

This misplaced respectfulness extends beyond Dutton to Albanese’s broader political strategy. His conciliatory approach toward institutions such as News Corporation and the Zionist lobby reflects a pattern of appeasement toward right-wing forces that yield no reciprocal benefit. By trying to placate critics who have little interest in supporting him, Albanese has squandered too much of his political capital and alienated key segments of his base.

Meanwhile, his opponents – such as Dutton – continue to exploit cultural flashpoints, railing against “woke” agendas and conjuring imaginary solutions such as nuclear power, while offering no substantive policies. Albanese’s reluctance to meet this antagonism head-on has left the government appearing passive and reactive, rather than proactive and visionary.

Competence is important but so is the art of politics: governments need to do both to survive, as shown by the successful Hawke–Keating era during 1983–96. This failure to play the game of politics effectively has broader implications for the electorate’s relationship with the two-party system. Voter disengagement with both major parties is growing, driven by a sense that neither truly represents their interests or aspirations. This disillusionment has created fertile ground for alternatives such as the Australian Greens and community-based independents, whose appeal lies in their perceived authenticity and alignment with grassroots concerns. For many voters, the choice between an underwhelming government and a reactionary opposition is no choice at all, prompting them to seek representation outside the traditional party structure.

Albanese’s inability to accommodate or even engage meaningfully with these rising forces further highlights the limitations of this old-style leadership. The Australian Greens, for instance, have gained traction by presenting a bolder vision on issues such as climate change, housing, and social justice – areas where the Labor government has either faltered or been perceived as too cautious. Instead of forging a collaborative relationship with the Greens to address these challenges, Albanese has often treated them as a nuisance or competitor, missing an opportunity to build a broader progressive coalition.

Similarly, the rise of community independents reflects a growing appetite for representatives who prioritise local issues and reject the entrenched partisanship of the major parties. These independents have demonstrated their capacity to disrupt the political landscape in a positive way, yet Albanese’s government has largely failed to recognise or adapt to this shift. Rather than embracing a more inclusive and adaptive approach, Labor remains wedded to a system that feels increasingly out of step with the electorate’s desires.

This stagnation is symptomatic of a broader crisis within the party system itself. Both Labor and the Liberal–National Coalition are entrenched in outdated structures and ideologies, struggling to adapt to the realities of the 21st century. While Albanese’s leadership style might once have been seen as a steadying hand, it now risks being perceived as symptomatic of a system that prioritises preservation over progress. The electorate’s turn toward alternative political actors highlights a growing impatience with a norm that seems incapable of addressing pressing challenges or offering transformative solutions.

There are parallels in other democracies: just as the U.S. Democratic Party has faced existential questions about its ability to adapt and survive – suffering a loss in the recent presidential elections to a candidate in Donald Trump who offers nothing but disinformation, negative disruption and instability – Australia’s major parties are similarly at a crossroads. Albanese’s leadership, while earnest and well-intentioned, has been hampered by this broader systemic malaise, leaving him ill-equipped to navigate a political environment that demands both agility and boldness.

Ultimately, his tenure raises fundamental questions about the nature of leadership and the future of Australian politics. His efforts to embody respect and statesmanship are commendable in theory but insufficient in practice within a system that thrives on conflict and spectacle. By failing to confront the politics of division, neglecting to build alliances with emerging forces, and clinging to a party structure that feels increasingly obsolete, Albanese risks not only his own legacy but also the broader relevance of the Labor Party. The challenge over the next six months before the 2025 election is whether he can adapt and assert a compelling vision – or whether his leadership will become another chapter in the slow decline of the two-party system.