The Dangerous Alliances of South Australian Politics: A Commentary
In the murky waters of Australian politics, alliances often reveal more about a party’s priorities than their public statements ever could. The recent decision by South Australia’s Liberal opposition to preference One Nation over Labor in the upcoming state election is a case in point. On the surface, it’s a strategic move to maximize electoral gains. But if you take a step back and think about it, this decision speaks volumes about the Liberals’ willingness to align with a party whose views are, at best, deeply divisive and, at worst, outright harmful.
The Pragmatism of Power
Let’s start with the obvious: politics is a game of numbers. The Liberals’ decision to preference One Nation is a calculated gamble. With polls suggesting One Nation could outpace the Liberals in voter support, this move is less about ideological alignment and more about survival. Personally, I think this is where the Liberals’ strategy starts to unravel. By prioritizing short-term electoral gains, they risk alienating moderate voters who might view this alliance as a betrayal of core liberal values.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the contrast between the Liberals’ actions and their public stance. Liberal leader Ashton Hurn’s response to Cory Bernardi’s controversial comments—claiming she “didn’t see those comments”—feels like a deliberate attempt to distance herself without actually condemning them. From my perspective, this is a classic example of political expediency trumping moral clarity. If you’re not willing to call out bigotry, are you not implicitly endorsing it?
The Bernardi Factor
Cory Bernardi’s comments—linking gay marriage to bestiality and claiming that “good Muslims” are incompatible with Australian values—are not new. What’s striking is his unwavering commitment to these views, even as they’ve been widely condemned. One thing that immediately stands out is how these remarks have been met with a mix of outrage and resignation. Labor, the Greens, and community leaders have rightfully criticized them, but the Liberals’ silence is deafening.
What many people don’t realize is that Bernardi’s views are not just offensive—they’re strategically dangerous. By doubling down on such divisive rhetoric, he’s not just alienating minority groups; he’s undermining the very fabric of social cohesion. This raises a deeper question: why would the Liberals align themselves with a party whose leader seems determined to stoke fear and division?
The Broader Implications
This alliance isn’t just about South Australia—it’s a microcosm of a larger trend in global politics. Across the world, mainstream parties are increasingly cozying up to populist and far-right groups in the hopes of securing power. In my opinion, this is a slippery slope. Once you start legitimizing extremist views for political gain, it becomes harder to draw the line.
A detail that I find especially interesting is One Nation’s decision not to preference the Liberals in return. This suggests a lack of mutual trust or, perhaps, a strategic move by One Nation to position itself as an independent force. What this really suggests is that these alliances are fragile and transactional, built on convenience rather than shared principles.
The Human Cost
Beyond the political maneuvering, there’s a human cost to this alliance. Ahmed Zreika’s invitation to Bernardi to visit his mosque and engage in dialogue is a powerful reminder of the real people affected by this rhetoric. It’s easy to dehumanize groups when you’ve never taken the time to understand them. Personally, I think this is where the Liberals have failed most spectacularly. By aligning with One Nation, they’re not just endorsing divisive views—they’re contributing to a culture of fear and exclusion.
Looking Ahead
As South Australia heads to the polls on March 21, this election will be a litmus test for the state’s values. Will voters reward the Liberals for their strategic pragmatism, or will they reject what many see as a morally bankrupt alliance? If you ask me, the outcome will say more about the electorate than it will about the parties themselves.
What this election really suggests is that the lines between mainstream and extremist politics are blurring. In a world where shock value often translates to votes, the question is no longer just about who wins—it’s about what we’re willing to tolerate in the process.
Final Thoughts
As someone who’s watched political alliances come and go, I can’t help but feel a sense of unease about this one. The Liberals’ decision to preference One Nation over Labor isn’t just a tactical move—it’s a statement about their priorities. And in my opinion, it’s a statement that should concern us all. Because when politics becomes a zero-sum game of power at any cost, it’s not just the parties that lose—it’s democracy itself.
