How Populism Has Affected Asylum Seeker Policy in Australia.
 

Australian asylum seeker policy has been greatly influenced by populism in various ways. Although “populism” is an ambiguous term (Tiffen, 2019) that has been labelled as an ideology, a movement and a style throughout the years (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014), it is clear how Australian politicians have adopted populist strategies to further their own aims whilst also catering to those with bigoted, Islamophobic views. The fuelled fear of the population against foreign agents (Martin, 2015), the creation of an “us and them” mindset (Knott, 2018), as well as the continual demonization of Arabic individuals (Martin, 2015) all stem from the scare tactics of populism. Populism can be/has been used in a permanent fashion (most evident throughout Howard’s time as prime minister (Wear, 2008)) and in a temporary, interventionalist fashion (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). The success of these populist manipulations has furthered the ill treatment of asylum seekers (Kent, 2014) and threatened their basic human rights under international law (Martin, 2015). Despite Australian policies being blanketed under a banner of “protection” or “security” (Martin, 2015) it is crucial to analyse the core motives of such policies and if they really do have the interests of the Australian citizens as well as asylum seekers, at heart. Populism tends to cater for those who feel as though their voices aren’t heard (Tiffen, 2019), however, these minority groups do not represent the rest of Australia. The majority of Australia either feel neutral or supportive towards immigrants (Soutphommasane, 2017), therefore, whether populism is threatening democracy (Baker, 2019) is another question that must be considered.
 

“Populism” is an elastic term that often changes in meaning depending on the era, country and the issues at hand (Tiffen, 2019). Historically, the term has been ambiguous in nature; embodying elements that do not fit neatly into either the left or right of the political spectrum (Tiffen, 2019) and is still today a term that no one is 100% clear on (Baker, 2019). It was originally viewed as a movement whose targets would distinguish whether they were more left or more right (Tiffen, 2019). If you were in an ethnic minority group for example, you were considered right, whereas, large business-minded corporations were considered left (Tiffen, 2019). Cas Mudde claimed that “populism” was best labelled as an ideology (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). There are a few issues with Mudde’s claim, for painting populism as an ideology suggests that it has core, fundamental features as other political ideologies have, such as Liberalism or Conservatism (Knott, 2018). Mudde accepts this and posits that populism is a “thin-centred ideology” with only a few core beliefs (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). One of said main beliefs poses the interests of “the pure people” (homogenous) against those of the self-serving “elites” (antagonistic) (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). The elites are generally depicted as those who compromise the cultural values of a country, prioritising the interests of an “other”, such as immigrants or foreign establishments, over the interests of its own citizens (Baker, 2019). This is quite ironic, as many Australian leaders today who may be considered populists or as utilizing populists’ strategies can also be placed under the corrupt “elite” banner simultaneously, as their actions often compromise the well-being of the everyday citizens (Baker, 2019). Another claim by Mudde is that there is a “general will” of the people should drive politics (Baker, 2019). However, it is widely debated whether such a consensus amongst the people exists. Therefore, many agree that it is best viewed as a style or strategy of politics, rather than a movement or ideology (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014).
 

For this essay we will focus on populism as a political style or strategy that politicians can slip in and out of when it suits them best. Benjamin Moffitt explains this style as a way of practicing politics and often focuses on why and how politicians use populism (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). It often prompts poor policy decisions and an overall political dysfunction (Hogan, 2019). Populist leaders (often charismatic (Wear, 2008)) will instigate a fear amongst the people that their sense of identity as a nation (Martin, 2015) and the essence of democracy (Baker, 2019) is under threat. This conjuring up of a crisis of rising inequality and injustice (Hogan, 2019) (as heard in their rhetoric), whether real or not (Knott, 2018), in turn produces an “us and them” mentality; turning all potential opposition into “enemies of the people” or the “elites”. This style of politics also brings about incorrect and discriminatory political language (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). In Australia populism has come to be understood as leaders pouring fuel onto prejudice views, manipulating policy options to be black and white (Tiffen, 2019), and exploiting the anxieties of the people (Martin, 2015) in order to gain more votes and support (Baker, 2019). On the other hand, many feel that the Australian politicians using these populist strategies are simply representing those of the people who feel as though their views are being disregarded (Tiffen, 2019). Whether these leaders are then identified as populists is questionable, for the nature of their use can be temporary or simply interventionalist, thus highlighting the momentary and strategic nature of populism as a style (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014). This use of a crisis (Miller, 2018) and strategic division of groups (Moffitt and Tormey, 2014) has been obvious within Australian policy making, especially regarding asylum seekers and immigration.
 

Populism has influenced Australian asylum seeker policy in various ways, and this is evident when analysing the actions and belief systems of various political leaders and parties. We will first understand what permanent populism looks like and how this has impacted policies and sentiments around immigration (Wear, 2008). Permanent populism was utilized by John Howard in order to extinguish any opposition to his party, such as Hanson’s One Nation, even though the two shared common values (Miller, 2018); goals usually centred around the idea that “a federation of cultures coexisting is unrealistic (Martin, 2015)”. Whether or not the majority of Australian citizens agree with such a notion is a point to be discussed later. Howard’s populist rhetoric was consistent throughout his time as prime minister (Wear, 2008), rather than simply being used as a drawcard tactic (Martin, 2015). Some of Howard’s asylum seeker policies included turning away asylum seeker boats, the introduction of temporary protection (Refugee Council of Australia, 2018) which left refugees in a constant state of worry of potential refoulement, dialect and Australian knowledge tests (Martin, 2015), as well as the introduction of the “Pacific Solution” which transferred “irregular maritime arrivals” to offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (Phillips, 2012).
 

These locations would accommodate asylum seekers whilst their claims were being assessed. However, the physical and mental strains on asylum seekers that were (and still are) forced into these centres is a point of constant contention. These individuals are subject to abuse, lack legal support, struggle to access basic (medical) facilities, undergo self-harm and stunt child development (Phillips, 2012). The Refugee Council of Australia expressed concerns regarding these centres and stated that it is wrong to exile asylum seekers and expose them to potential harm (Phillips, 2012). Howard’s lack of awareness, inconsistency with Australia’s international law commitment (Martin, 2015) and his blatant disrespect for the rights and wellbeing of asylum seekers, in aims to protect Australia’s “united values” (Baker, 2019), highlights the discrimination and demonization of innocent people that can stem from populist ideals (Martin, 2015), as well as his ultimate desire to stop all opposition regardless of if his policies become more cynical, alienating and ignore basic human rights (Wear, 2008). Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott’s leadership were matched with similar populist strategies that used the ongoing “protection of Australian people and its borders” (McAdam and Purcell, 2019) as well as the “prevention of dying boat people” (Kent, 2014) tactics to blanket the discrimination against asylum seekers who they claim to be sympathetic towards.

Australia’s right-winged asylum seeker policies outlined above, that many other extremists around the globe aspire to, reiterate and echo the crisis-inducing strategy of populism; creating an enemy to be feared and basing discriminatory policies upon the supposed right to protect your own people. This can also be referred to as the exploitation of moral panic that is often used as a temporary tactic, often resulting in unstable and dangerous asylum seekers policies (Kent, 2014). This is evident when observing the Labor government’s last-ditch attempt to gain support with their “No Visa” campaign in 2013 (Martin, 2015), which received a lot of uproar for being a “blatant political advertisement” directed at voters and not asylum seekers (Christensen, 2013). This temporary tactic of “stopping the boats” was also used by the Coalition, nearing an election (Martin, 2015). This reiterates Garland’s concept that elections can be a “precipitating cause” of moral panic (Martin, 2015), for it is a time of uncertainty where citizens are more easily influenced and where their recurring anxieties (Martin, 2015) over threatened social and economic norms (such as losing jobs to foreigners (Miller, 2018)) are highlighted.
 

It has been argued that moral panic over asylum seekers has become normalised within Australia (Martin, 2015); Muslims being painted as terrorists, Arabic-looking individuals painted as foreign enemies. And it is not difficult to understand how this bigoted viewpoint continually gains traction, especially amongst fundamentalist, right-winged minority groups who are usually the target of populist strategies. It is important to understand how moral panic functions and Cohen’s model (Martin, 2015) of understanding summarises it efficiently and highlights how these groups can react to such bait. It highlights that moral panic consists of a) concern raised by media sources, b) hostility against those (asylum seekers) portrayed as “folk devils”, c) consensus amongst a large group of people, d) the extent of the threat is exaggerated and disproportional and e) volatility (the panic that emerges can dissolve quickly) (Martin, 2015). This somewhat overreaction to the moral panic that Australian politicians conjure up regarding boat people and a threatened “cherished way of life” (Martin, 2015), creates a breeding ground for racism, exclusivity and hypocrisy whilst also contributing to the wider issue of globalised Islamophobia (Martin, 2015).

It is crucial to decipher whether populism is aiding in keeping Australian democracy afloat or if it is actually dismantling it. Those adopting populist tactics within Australian politics often cater to those who express a high volume of discontent and neglect towards asylum seekers; using their concern as fuel (Tiffen, 2019). One Nation, for example, has been known to emphasise a sense of nostalgia and desire to re-create an “Australia of yesteryear” (Soutphommasane, 2017); or in other terms, return to a predominantly white, Christian population. Pauline Hanson’s use of populism has aided her well, with over 90% of her voters agreeing that immigration numbers should be cut (Hanrahan, 2019). However, this party, it’s voters and other similar groups tormented by the intake do not represent the views of the majority of the Australian people. Thus, whether politicians are responding to what the majority wants, rather than just these specific groups, is up for debate (Hanrahan, 2019). The annual Scanlon Foundation survey depicted that over 80% of Australians support cultural diversity and immigration, as it creates a more interesting society (Soutphommasane, 2017). As of 2019, approximately two-thirds of Australians believe that the migrant intake is either too low or about right (Hanrahan, 2019). One reason why minority groups in Australia (especially right-winged) have such an impact on politicians and their policies is due to how vocal they are (Soutphommasane, 2017). Regardless of if most Australians feel neutral or positive towards refugees, the amount of uproar unleashed against asylum seekers that is encouraged by politicians creates an issue (justified or not) that may otherwise have been avoided or dealt with more humanely. The fact, however, that the Australian leaders pander more to these groups whilst ignoring everyone else suggests that their use of populism is solely linked to their own motives and not to the upholding of democratic values (Baker, 2019).
 

It is clear how populism has been adopted by Australian politicians as a style to influence policy and decision-making surrounding asylum seekers. The constant fearmongering and demonization of boat people as well as the snapshot, marketing-purposed policies in order to gain votes and support, both reflect the negative nature of populism; especially when embraced by right-winged conservatives. Despite the various definitions of populism, the core aim to divide people into groups of “pure” people and “folk devils”/”elites” highlights the ongoing motive of our leaders to exploit anxieties and pour fuel onto prejudice views. Although the majority of Australians feel positive or indifferent towards asylum seekers, populist-influenced politicians choose to ignore democratic values and instead favour minority groups whose bigoted views and goals align more strongly with theirs.























REFERENCES 
 

Baker, P. (2019). ‘We the people’: the battle to define populism. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/10/we-the-people-the-battle-to-define-populism [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Christensen, N. (2013). Government ‘No Visa’ campaign draws fire for being politically motivated – Mumbrella. [online] Mumbrella. Available at: https://mumbrella.com.au/government-no-visa-168352 [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Hanrahan, C. (2019). What Vote Compass tells us about voters’ views on immigration. [online] ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-24/vote-compass-election-immigration-asylum-seekers/11038070 [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Hogan, W. (2019). Australia’s populist moment has arrived. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/australias-populist-moment-has-arrived-111491 [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].

Kent, J. (2014). The Politics of Australian Asylum and Border Policy: Escaping the Duelling Paradigms. [online] Regarding Rights. Available at: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/regarding-rights/2014/10/15/the-politics-of-australian-asylum-and-border-policy-escaping-the-duelling-paradigms/ [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].

Knott, A. (2018). What is populism – and why is it so hard to define?. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/what-is-populism-and-why-is-it-so-hard-to-define-107457 [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Martin, G. (2015). Stop the boats! Moral panic in Australia over asylum seekers. [ebook] Continuum Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, pp.304-322. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2014.986060?scroll=top&needAccess=true [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

McAdam, J. and Purcell, K. (2019). Refugee Protection in the Howard Years: Obstructing the Right to Seek Asylum. [ebook] Australian Year Book of International Law Vol 27, pp.1-28. Available at: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLRS/2009/3.pdf [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Miller, N. (2018). Australia’s hard line on asylum seekers echoes around the world. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australia-s-hard-line-on-asylum-seekers-echoes-around-the-world-20180622-p4zn3g.html [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Moffitt, B. and Tormey, S. (2014). Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style. [ebook] Political Studies, pp.381-397. Available at: http://file:///C:/Users/emmkou/Downloads/Rethinking_Populism_Politics_Mediatisati.pdf [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island – Parliament of Australia. [online] Aph.gov.au. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/PacificSolution [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Refugee Council of Australia. (2018). Australia’s asylum policies – A short history of Australian Refugee Policy. [online] Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-policies/4/ [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Soutphommasane, D. (2017). Populism, anxiety and race | Australian Human Rights Commission. [online] Humanrights.gov.au. Available at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/populism-anxiety-and-race [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Tiffen, R. (2019). We, the populists. [online] Griffith Review. Available at: https://griffithreview.com/articles/we-the-populists/ [Accessed 5 Oct. 2019].
 

Wear, R. (2008). Permanent Populism: The Howard Government 1996–2007. Australian Journal of Political Science, pp.617-634.