Is Bipartisanship on National Security Beneficial? Australia's Politics of Defence and Security

Abstract

One of the most widely-endorsed norms in Australian politics is the requirement for bipartisanship in the management of defence and security policy. This norm is assumed to lead to good policy creation, foster political unity, and protect those who implement national policy (particularly the military). The paper argues that evidence for all three of these claims is overstated. In addition, the effects of the norm are often counter-productive and even harmful to the conduct and management of Australian policy. The paper concludes by arguing that the norm of bipartisanship for Australian defence and security policy should be abandoned.

The unintended consequences of parliamentary involvement: Elite collusion and Afghanistan deployments in Canada and Germany

“…When parties are motivated by vote-seeking behaviour, for instance, their incentive to deliberate and debate an issue will be shaped by how the policy will affect their electoral prospects, rather than democratic principles. Moreover, as Lagassé (2010) has argued with respect to Canada, and Carr (2017) with respect to Australia, a bipartisan approach to foreign and defence policy comes with disadvantages, especially when parties agree about a policy that the public opposes. In such cases, as this study highlights, it may lead these parties to collude to avoid electoral accountability.…”

Promoting a Bi-partisan Approach in Responding to the Contemporary Socio-economic Challenges in Kenya.

“…Ensures value addition to the bills or ideas being discussed thus making the outcome more valuable than the original idea. It enhances legitimacy since the agreed upon policy or law is always binding to all parties being represented (Carr, 2017). It fosters equity and equality among the stakeholders and ensures that no stakeholder is left behind as others m68/ove forward.…”