Introduction
Democracy, at its core, embodies a governance system built upon the principles of representation, accountability and competition. The existence of a robust opposition is widely regarded as a cornerstone of democratic integrity, ensuring that power remains contested, policies are subject to scrutiny and the ruling party is held accountable to the electorate. However, when one party maintains extended control – especially for over two decades – coupled with an ineffective opposition, the democratic process risks significant erosion. This post delves into the theoretical implications of such a scenario, focusing specifically on the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), where the Labor Party has governed uninterrupted since 2001, a tenure that will extend to 24 years by 2025. It posits that prolonged one-party rule undermines democracy by allowing the dominant party to “stack” essential institutions –the judiciary, public service, police force, Magistrates’ court, tribunals – in its favor, thereby stifling the growth of opposition and entrenching its power. The theoretical framework of democracy and the role of opposition provides the lens through which this case is analysed.
Theoretical Framework: Democracy and the Role of Opposition
Democracy is often defined as “rule by the people,” a concept derived from the Greek terms demos (people) and kratos (power). Modern liberal democracies, such as Australia’s, operate under a framework that includes free and fair elections, the rule of law, separation of powers and protection of individual rights. Central to this system is the concept of political pluralism, which posits that multiple parties or groups should compete for power, offering voters genuine choice and ensuring accountability.
The opposition plays a critical role in this framework. According to political theorist Robert Dahl, a functioning democracy requires “contestation” and “participation.” Contestation refers to the ability of opposition groups to challenge the ruling party, presenting alternative policies and holding the government accountable. Without an effective opposition, the ruling party faces little pressure to justify its actions, potentially leading to complacency, corruption, or authoritarian tendencies. Scholars like Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan further argue that consolidated democracies depend on institutional checks and balances, including an independent judiciary, a neutral public service and a competitive political environment. Extended one-party rule, particularly when coupled with a weak opposition, risks subverting these checks, allowing the dominant party to manipulate institutions to perpetuate its dominance.
This theoretical lens highlights two key dangers of prolonged one-party rule: institutional capture and democratic backsliding. Institutional capture occurs when the ruling party appoints loyalists to key positions, undermining the impartiality of the judiciary, public service and law enforcement. Democratic backsliding, meanwhile, refers to the gradual erosion of democratic norms, such as fair competition and accountability, as power becomes concentrated. The ACT serves as a pertinent case study to explore these dynamics in practice.
The Australian Capital Territory: A Case of Extended One-Party Rule
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT), a self-governing territory that encompasses Australia’s capital, Canberra, has been under Labor Party control since 2001 – a period of 24 years as of 2025. This uninterrupted tenure starkly contrasts with the competitive two-party system that characterises much of Australian politics at the federal and state levels, where power typically alternates between Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition. The ACT’s small population (approximately 460,000) and unique status as a territory rather than a state may contribute to this anomaly, but the longevity of Labor’s rule raises critical questions about its impact on democratic health.
Labor’s dominance in the ACT Legislative Assembly, which consists of 25 members elected via the Hare-Clark proportional representation system, has not been seriously challenged. The opposition, primarily the Liberal Party, has struggled to gain traction, often securing fewer than 10 seats in elections. This imbalance has left Labor with a de facto monopoly on policymaking, budget allocation and appointments to key institutions. Over 24 years, this extended rule has arguably allowed Labor to entrench its influence across the ACT’s governance structures, including the public service, judiciary and magistrates’ court.
Institutional Capture in the ACT
One of the most significant risks of extended one-party rule is the potential for the ruling party to “stack” institutions with supporters, undermining their independence and impartiality. In the ACT, this phenomenon appears to have manifested in several key areas.
The Public Service
The ACT public service, responsible for implementing government policy and delivering services, employs thousands of individuals across various directorates. In a jurisdiction governed by one party for over two decades, appointments to senior roles – such as chief executives and directors-general – may increasingly reflect political loyalty rather than merit. While there is no definitive public evidence proving systematic stacking, the prolonged absence of political turnover reduces the incentive for a government to maintain a neutral bureaucracy. Over time, a culture of alignment with Labor’s priorities could emerge, where career advancement depends on demonstrating sympathy with the ruling party’s agenda. This erosion of the public service’s role as an impartial institution tilts it toward the interests of the incumbent government and weakens its capacity to serve an alternative administration should one ever take power.
The Judiciary and Magistrates’ Court
The independence of the judiciary is a bedrock of democracy, ensuring that laws are applied fairly and the executive is held accountable. In the ACT, the Supreme Court and Magistrates’ Court are critical to this function. Judges and magistrates are appointed by the ACT government, specifically the Attorney-General, a position held by Labor ministers for 24 years. While judicial appointments in Australia are typically subject to rigorous processes to ensure competence and independence, the lack of political alternation raises concerns about subtle biases in selection. A government with uninterrupted control may prioritise candidates perceived as ideologically compatible or unlikely to challenge its legislative agenda.
The Magistrates’ Court, which handles a high volume of civil and criminal cases, is particularly vulnerable. Magistrates, unlike Supreme Court judges, are often drawn from the legal profession within the ACT where long-term Labor governance may shape the pool of eligible candidates. If magistrates owe their positions to a single party’s patronage, their impartiality could be questioned, especially in cases involving government interests. Over 24 years, this dynamic risks creating a judiciary that reflects the ruling party’s influence, undermining public trust and the separation of powers.
Senior Police Appointments
The ACT’s policing functions are provided by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) under a contractual arrangement with the territory government. While the AFP operates under federal oversight, senior appointments within the ACT policing division – such as the Chief Police Officer – are influenced by the territory government. Extended Labor rule could allow the party to favor candidates aligned with its priorities, particularly on issues like public order or law enforcement policy. A police force perceived as loyal to the ruling party could deter opposition activities, such as protests or public criticism, further entrenching Labor’s dominance.
Erosion of Opposition Influence
A healthy democracy requires an opposition capable of challenging the government and offering a viable alternative. In the ACT, the Liberal Party’s inability to mount an effective challenge has compounded the effects of Labor’s institutional control. Several factors contribute to this weakness. First, Labor’s long tenure has enabled it to dominate political discourse, shaping public perceptions and policy debates in its favor. Second, control over resources – such as government advertising, community grants and public sector jobs – gives Labor an advantage in maintaining voter support, leaving the opposition underfunded and marginalised. Third, the stacking of institutions reduces the opposition’s ability to hold the government accountable through legal or administrative channels, as key offices may be less inclined to scrutinize Labor’s actions.
This creates a vicious cycle: a weak opposition struggles to gain power, allowing the ruling party to further consolidate its position, which in turn weakens the opposition further. Over 24 years, this dynamic has arguably transformed the ACT into a de facto one-party jurisdiction, where democratic competition exists in name but not in substance.
Implications for Democracy
The ACT’s experience illustrates how extended one-party rule can lead to democratic backsliding. The stacking of the public service, judiciary and police with party supporters undermines the separation of powers, a key democratic principle. When institutions lose their independence, they cease to function as checks on executive power, allowing the ruling party to govern with impunity. This erosion of accountability occurs as the government faces little pressure to justify its decisions or respond to criticism.
Moreover, the absence of a credible opposition stifles political pluralism. Voters are denied meaningful choice, reducing elections to a formality rather than a genuine contest of ideas. Over time, this can foster apathy or disillusionment among the electorate, weakening civic engagement and trust in democratic institutions. In the ACT, Labor’s 24-year reign risks normalising one-party dominance, setting a precedent that could influence other Australian jurisdictions if unchecked.
Counterarguments and Context
Defenders of the ACT’s system might argue that Labor’s prolonged rule reflects genuine public support rather than democratic failure. The territory’s progressive electorate, concentrated in an urban, public-sector-heavy region, may naturally favor Labor’s policies, such as investment in education, health and environmental initiatives. Proportional representation under the Hare-Clark system ensures that smaller parties, like the Greens, also hold seats, providing some diversity of representation. Furthermore, Australia’s strong legal and democratic traditions – including an independent High Court with oversight of constitutional matters – offer safeguards against outright authoritarianism.
However, these counterarguments do not fully address the risks of institutional capture and opposition erosion. Even if Labor’s dominance is democratically legitimate, the lack of turnover over 24 years creates opportunities for subtle power consolidation that may not be immediately visible. The presence of minor parties like the Greens, often aligned with Labor in coalition or policy, does little to challenge the broader trend of one-party control.
Conclusion
Extended one-party rule, as exemplified by Labor’s 24-year governance of the ACT, poses a significant threat to democratic integrity. By enabling the ruling party to stack the public service, judiciary, magistrates’ court and police with supporters, it undermines the separation of powers and institutional independence. Simultaneously, it weakens the opposition’s ability to grow and influence governance, reducing political competition and voter choice. The theoretical framework of democracy underscores the necessity of a robust opposition and impartial institutions to prevent such outcomes. Although the ACT cannot be described as authoritarian, the rule of law has been compromised on multiple occasions. This reality serves as a cautionary tale of how prolonged dominance can erode democratic norms, even within a stable liberal democracy like Australia. Addressing this issue may require reforms – such as strengthening opposition funding, enhancing judicial appointment transparency, or fostering greater public scrutiny – to restore balance and ensure the ACT embodies its democratic ethos.