The Party Politics of Military Intervention in Australia and Executive Prerogatives: Ideology Meets Strategy and Culture

Abstract

Abstract As an adjusted Westminster-style system with large executive room for maneuver in matters of foreign, security, and defense policies, Australia’s parliament does not have a formal say in sending troops abroad despite the continental nation’s constant military deployments, i.e., alongside its major ally, the United States. Past efforts from Democrats and Greens to push legislation giving parliament ex ante voting rights have been stymied by Labor-Liberal bipartisanism opposing it. However, given increasing political fragmentation and the politicization of military deployments, post-Cold War politics gives testament to dissent on the use of force, decision-making on it, and the reach of oversight between political parties. Linking the Australian case to contemporary scholarship on the party politics of security and defense policy, this article focuses on the party-political component of contestation and explores patterns of dissent and consensus on the use of force, decision-making, and oversight. Using voting, debate, interview data, and taking stock of the most recent parliamentary inquiry into war powers, the article demonstrates Australian parallels with party-political contestation in other countries. However, it also highlights that debate and agency in Australia do only follow those in other Westminster systems to some extent, while Australian parties put an even higher emphasis on decision-making efficiency in an insecure strategic environment.