On Institutions, Culture, and The Land of Oz

I am generally a skeptic of arguments about “culture”, especially when they’re made in politics. Nothing makes me yawn more than being told that Group X has Behavior Y because of Cultural Concept Z. 

Instead, I find most supposedly cultural arguments are really more about people reacting to variations in institutional structure and incentives. Group X has Behavior Y because of Context Z. Group A has Behavior B, because their context is different. 

But I don’t know what to do with this. For those unwilling to click through, here’s the story: 

Early this morning (for those of us living in Eastern Standard Time, otherwise known as “Correct Time”), the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, lost control of her party. She has now been replaced as party leader by Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd, following the rules of the parliamentary system Australian politics operates in, will now go to the Governor General to seek appointment as PM, and will also have to face a confidence vote in the legislature. 

It’s not 100% certain he’ll win, however. Although he needs only a simple majority vote, some members of his own party (Gillard loyalists) might vote against or abstain in protest. Even if all of his party (The center-left Labor Party) did support him, they actually lack a majority in the lower-house. Gillard’s parliamentary majority depends on support from a small clutch of independents: the result of the inconclusive 2010 election, which actually saw Labor and the the right-wing Liberal/National Coalition* get the same number of seats. They may decide against supporting Rudd as well. Either outcome would force an early election, but given the existing one is scheduled for the Fall, “early” is unlikely to make too much of a difference. 

So why did I start all this talking about culture? Because Kevin Rudd has been prime minister before. He was Labor Party leader and PM in 2010, when a young upstart in his party dethroned him just months before a general election. That upstart was Julia Gillard. Since then, Rudd has repeatedly tried to launch counter-revolutionary warfare. Indeed the party coup is something of an Australian tradition. Of the last five Labor Party leaders, three were forced out in party coups, and the other two seem to have resigned hastily to avoid being similarly disgraced. The record for the Coalition is similar. 

Which is strange. In many respects Australian politics behaves exactly how you’d expect it to. For example, the two-party-plus party system for example is broadly consistent with what you’d expect under Duverger’s Law, given the Australian electoral system. But it’s not at all clear to me how to explain why Australian politics are so cut-throat and coup-prone. Australia’s most obvious peer countries, New Zealand, Canada and the UK are much more placid. Heated, sometimes rude, parliamentary debate is not unusual in those countries. regular CSPAN watchers would be shocked at some of the things members sometimes say in the British House of Commons. 

But the petty factionalism, bitter intra-party rivalries, and coup-mania that seems endemic to Australian politics is quite unusual. 

So… Culture?

*For those who don’t know but are interested, here’s a quick primer on Australia’s right-wing Coalition. In parliamentary systems, “coalitions” are usually formed after elections, made up by some alliance of electorally-independent parties that form a post-election agreement to join together to form a parliamentary majority. The Conservative-Liberal coalition government in the UK today is an example. The Australian Coalition is different, though not wholly unusual. It is an enduring alliance of two parties, who share common electoral branding and ballot space. Although the constituent parts, the Liberal Party and the National Party, enjoy substantial internal independence, they operate within a common framework, have for some time, and are likely to continue to into the medium term at least. There is some basic logic to the alliance: both parties are right wing, but one (National) has traditionally represented rural interests (farmers in particular), while the other (The Liberals) represents town and city populations. As Australia has urbanized and the family farm has declined as a force in rural society, the balance of internal power has swung substantially towards The Liberals. The Coalition as such often seems merely a tool of Liberal leadership, with the Nats struggling to hold relevance. This kind of power dynamic is not unusual. So entrenched is the dominance in Germany of Angela Merkel’s CDU over its alliance-partner the Bavarian CSU that you probably didn’t know the latter exists.