The Australian Shooters and Fishers’ party arose out of support for gun owners after a series of high-profile mass shootings in the early 1990s. The party’s platform is to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, and their use of firearms for legitimate purposes. The party also advocates hunter rights, supporting policies that will open up public land for hunting. However, the Shooters and Fishers’ party was deregistered twice, once in 2004 and another in 2006. The party was deregistered in 2004 for failing to contest a federal election within four years. Afterward, the party reregistered, but was deregistered again in 2006 for not having a representative sitting in Federal Parliament.[1] The question is, were these legitimate reasons for deregistering a political party?
There are seven functions of political parties:
· Candidate nomination
· Electoral mobilization
· Issue structuring
· Societal representation
· Interest aggregation
· Forming and sustaining government
· Social integration
If one uses these seven functions as guidelines in determining registration status, would one find legitimate grounds for deregistration in 2004 and 2006?
- Candidate nomination – The party nominated candidates for elections held in 1996, 1998, 2006, 2007, and 2011.
- Electoral mobilization – Support is small, but the party gets them to the polls.
- Issue structuring – They do have an official platform, prominently supporting gun owner’s rights.
- Societal representation – They represent maybe 0.8 percent of the vote, but they do represent.
- Interest aggregation – Although their interest aggregation may be limited, they do have a conservative view on the family and a solid platform on protecting the environment.
- Forming and sustaining government – They contribute when elected.
- Social integration – They have passed legislation while in office to support their cause, showing they are efficacious.
[1] "Shooters and Fishers Party." enotes.com, n. d. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.enotes.com/topic/Shooters_and_Fishers_Party>.
Third parties arising out of a specific issue/idea are very interesting. I wonder how long Shooters and Fishers will last.
ReplyDeletePolitical parties play different roles in different countries. I, of course, feel that political parties should follow the American example and retain as little power as possible beyond electioneering. We should all realize that, at heart, political parties are nothing more than organizations that seek to atain power. This is not necessarily a bad thing...just a fact that needs to be kept in context. Political parties are not synonomous with ideology. Whatever their function in any given country (Australian political parties obviously operate in a different legal atmosphere than their American counterparts), voters should place their trust in candidates (and the principles and policies they espouse) rather than political parties.
ReplyDeleteDoes a political party need to fulfill all the functions of political parties in order to remain registered? Is candidate nomination the culminating evidence of legitimacy for political parties? I wonder what type of role the Shooter's and Fisher's party wants to play in society. Because of their highly specific platform they do not appeal to the public in general and will probably never have the influence to get enough politicians high enough in office to change any federal laws about hunting or fishing.
ReplyDeleteSo, if I understand, Australia works with a Parliamentary system. In which case, if the party does not receive a seat, then I can see where they would not be classified as a political party since then it appears they would not be doing much-- because the parties with representation are those that work with the issues. So could it have been a legitimate de-registration if-- because they were not represented in the Federal Parliament through loss of election, could you argue they were then not fulfilling their societal representation and therefore not fulfilling their function?
ReplyDelete