The Frequent Prime Minister Turnovers in Australia, Italy and Japan

The September 14th ousting of Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott is not an event outside of the nation’s set of political norms. Replaced by Abbott’s communications minister Malcolm Turnbull, this is the fifth change of parliamentary leadership in Australia in the last five years. Turnbull initiated the leadership spill—a tactic unique to Australia in which a member of the party in power may declare the leadership ‘vacant’ and open it for reelection. Turnbull defeated Abbott 54-44, ending Abbott’s two-year tenure as Prime Minister. Turnbull took office immediately, leaving Abbott, who had become increasingly unpopular due to his slew of budget cuts and series of gaffes, in the dust.

Turnbull brings more moderate political views to replace Abbott’s very conservative ideology, especially regarding same-sex marriage and greenhouse gas emissions. Simply put, Abbott was not performing well, and therefore, Turnbull opted to “ambush [Abbott] with a sudden request to spill the leadership”.

Why do Australian prime ministers experience such frequent turnovers? The question can also be asked in regards to Japan and Italy, who have seen 18 cabinets with 13 prime ministers and 13 cabinets with 8 prime ministers since 1993, respectfully. Ikeya Tomoaki, a professor of political science at Waseda University, has some theories.

After conducting research on Japan and Italy and their frequent changes of power, Tomoaki believes that short-lived leadership is partially a product of “the equal status of the two houses in parliament [and] the growth in the number of parties and the resulting instability of coalition governments . . . [which have] led to more frequent elections, meaning a new prime minister.” In the early 90’s, both Italy and Japan saw major electoral reforms in an attempt to establish two-party systems that would regularly alternate control. Unfortunately, this change did not have quite the intended effect. Japan adopted a ‘first past the post’ single-seat constituency system in 1994 that gave way to smaller sets of seats assigned by proportional representation. However, during this time, the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) had just been ousted by a coalition of opposition parties. The LDP returned to power one year later after forming a coalition with Japan’s socialist party, who had traditionally been the LDP’s opposition. Within this coalition, prime ministers fluctuated between socialist and LDP leaders, and they remained in power until the 2009 general election, when the Democratic Party of Japan broke their reign.

Italy, on the other hand, presents a more extreme case for leadership turnovers according to Tomoaki. Much like Japan, Italy introduced a new electoral system in 1993 that granted seats more proportionally. This new system also provided extra premium seats to the winning party or coalition in an attempt to ensure greater stability. However, due to Italy’s large amount of parties and coalitions, it is still difficult to obtain a stable majority, even with the premium seats.

According to Tomoaki, without a stable majority, it is easy to manipulate the leadership and take down a prime minister. This can be seen in Italy’s 2008 ousting of Romano Prodi, whose coalition originally had just a two-seat majority in the upper house. Prodi relinquishing his leadership after losing a confidence vote in the Senate despite a win in the Chamber of Deputies.

To tie these theories back to the recent change of leadership in Australia, it is evident that both the leadership and the Australian people themselves were unsatisfied with Abbott’s results. His policy flip-flops and ultra conservative views were not conducive to productivity, and the Liberal party leadership understandably chose to do something about it. As stated by Tomoaki, a prime minister must be able to manage his or her party and the ruling coalition in order to move an agenda along, and Abbott had failed to do so.

Similarly, the Australian parliament has similar makeup to that of Italy with small majorities and many parties and coalitions. The current Australian Senate is ruled by the Liberal & National party coalition, which holds 33 seats, while the Labor party controls 25. The remaining 18 seats are held by smaller parties and independents. In both houses, there are 6 extra parties and multiple independents.

A majority, like in Italy, is difficult to secure in Australia, and when one takes into account the readily accessible process of re-electing leadership within the ruling party by means of a spill, it is all the more understandable why Australia has had so many prime ministers throughout its history.

Other parliamentary systems like Germany and Britain, who have only had 3 and 4 prime ministers since 1993, respectively, do not deal with these issues. This can be attributed to their relatively weak—by comparison—upper houses who do not possess the power to push government leader out of office. However, it is certainly a topic for further research and discussion, especially as Italy and Japan both seek ways to weaken their upper houses in hopes of having more leadership stability in the future.

Perhaps, newly-elected Prime Minister Turnbull will break Australia’s cycle and serve an effective tenure. However, according to both the country’s track record and Tomoaki’s theories, it is only a matter of time until history repeats itself and we are reading about another leadership spill from the land down under.