Populist politicians are on the ascendency across the globe. Japan is heading to the polls with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who can probably be called a populist, tapping into strong anti-foreigner sentiment to give her Liberal Democratic Party its traditional grip on power. Joining demagogues like Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Wilders and Milei is Australia’s own “rage ranga” Pauline Hanson, whose political fortunes have taken an astonishing turn.
Before going forward, a bit of disclosure: I despise the right-wing form of demagoguery spreading around the world, but lean toward populism on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I’m an angry, fearful old man. That makes me a prime populist supporter. But populism on either side almost never works out. Even in the rare cases where it does, the success isn’t sustained for long. (Narendra Modi, India’s leader since 2014, may disagree). Rage bait works when it comes from the outside. It’s far less effective when it has to address day-to-day running of a country. Disagree? Look no further than the calamitous situation in a United States with a populist head of state.
Hanson first sprang to fame in 1996 when the former fish-and-chip shop operator was preselected as the Liberal Party of Australia candidate for a House of Representatives seat in the state of Queensland only to be disendorsed for controversial comments about indigenous Australians. She remained on the ballot paper as the Liberal Party candidate and won the seat, but entered parliament as an independent. She caused outrage by using her maiden speech to claim Australia was being “swamped by Asians.”
Incandescent fury greeted the speech, and almost universal anger called for Hanson’s resignation and her fledgling political career seemed done before it had barely started. Notably, Australia’s then newly elected Prime Minister John Howard, himself noted for anti-Asian sentiment, refused to openly condemn Hanson, but few professed to be a supporter.
Unlike another Hanson making waves at the time, longevity was not something many foresaw for the former fish-and-chip shop operator in the 1990s. Yet, three whole decades later, not only is Australia’s Hanson still around, pollster Demos AU this week found her to be the country’s second-most preferred prime minister, surpassing opposition Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley and trailing only the incumbent Anthony Albanese of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). Demos AU also reckons that Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party could become Australia’s largest opposition party if current polling trends are reflected in the ballot box when Aussies next go to the polls. It currently has One Nation receiving 24% support, more than double its customary allocation of the vote.
Hanson has clearly touched a nerve among Aussies with her consistent railing against immigration, multiculturalism, and globalisation while famously not understanding the term “xenophobia.” She’s been popular before, with One Nation becoming the biggest opposition party in Queensland in the 1990s only to collapse amid in-fighting.
Former ALP leader Mark Latham, who came within a whisker of becoming prime minister in 2004, later joined One Nation only to have a falling out with Hanson and storm off. Former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has recently left the National Party of Australia and joined One Nation, though it remains to be seen whether he will become one of its assets or the liability he has been for his side in recent years, such as when he was found sprawled across the footpath in a drunken state and had a baby with a staffer. The unkind might say that One Nation is a sanctuary for washed-up politicians from all extremes of the spectrum.
Hanson was, like another well-known populist leader who I’ll let you guess I’m referring to, has also been jailed: in her case for political fraud, though the conviction was later overturned. After several failed election bids, Hanson made it back into national politics after being elected a senator for Queensland in 2016 and has remained a member of the Senate ever since. She continues to oppose immigration, Islam, climate policy, and international agreements.
Because of Australia’s preferential voting system and proportional representation, where parties can win seats according to the proportion of votes they receive, Hanson’s One Nation has been given power beyond its prowess, especially because of the bicameral system used nationally and in most states.
The party generally polls around 5%-10% of the vote, which is usually not good enough to get lower house seats, but can often obtain crucial seats in upper houses, which give the party the crucial balance of power position where it can determine outcomes, or at least enough votes to sway opinions either side. This has enabled Hanson to have a power voice in national attitudes toward immigration, culture wars, roles of elites (who she vehemently criticizes but routinely consorts with), climate change denial and globalization.
Hanson has been able to remain in the public eye following a repeated cycle of being provocative in such ways as being anti-Asian, anti-Islamic or anti-immigration; tapping into the outrage to amplify her message; copping backlash from mainstream society; playing victim; and consolidating her support base.
Another consistency of Hanson’s career is a little more surprising. She seems to have something of a soft spot for Japan, which is not uncommon among rightist populists in Australia and other parts of the world. Though populists worldwide have this mythical view of Japan (unwanted by many Japanese) of being a socially cohesive, hegemonic counterexample to multiculturalism and governed by discipline and order, Hanson has never made public statements along these lines.
When she first emerged on the political scene in the 1990s, Hanson ensured Australia made a rare blip on the Japanese media’s radar. Even more so, she had a cultural impact with Australian-based manga-ka Tetsu Kariya famously using his legendary comic Oishinbo to tell Japanese readers about Hanson and her impact on life in Australia (Images from the 1998 strip are used with this post). Kariya had been a long-time, and fervent, supporter of Australia and multiculturalism (he would write prolifically on the wonderful lifestyle Australia offers), but was horrified by the emergence of Hanson and the support for her. The Japanese government was silent then, except to say that it does not interfere in other countries’ domestic matters, and remains that way now.
Hanson, meanwhile, has strongly supported Australia’s trade and defense agreements with Japan and come out with force against China.
It would be interesting to see what Liberal Party stalwarts think of their actions in the 1990s now that Hanson’s party has surpassed theirs, at least in opinion polls (which the politicians would say probably don’t matter). Howard chose not to take a hard line against Hanson, yet Tony Abbott, who would follow Howard as Liberal Party leader and eventually prime minister, was a fierce foe of the former chip shop operator and worked feverishly to get her out of politics. (One of Abbott‘s top staffers had defected to Hanson’s party, so that may have had something to do with it). The Liberals know governance and will likely rise again, but the Hanson tale is, if nothing else, one of remarkable durability.
