By The Tanck Team

Political violence should concern every Australian.

The attack on Independent MP Helen Haines is appalling and the death threats directed at Minister Anne Aly raise serious questions about the environment in which our elected representatives are expected to work. Disagreement is fundamental to democracy. Threats, intimidation and violence are not.

But condemning political violence is only the starting point. We also need to understand the conditions that allow it to take hold.

Across Australia, trust in government and established political institutions is under pressure. Regular people from communities across Australia, with views that span the political spectrum feel disconnected, frustrated and increasingly doubtful that politicians understand their lives or will act on their concerns.

Cost-of-living pressures, unmet expectations, violent protests at an international level and a sense of being ignored can deepen that frustration.

None of this excuses violence.

But if we want to address it, we cannot simply condemn the people expressing their anger while refusing to examine why trust is deteriorating.

Political leaders have a responsibility to recognise that their words carry weight. When those elected by the public use divisive rhetoric, portray opponents as enemies or reduce complex problems to battles between opposing sides, they risk reinforcing the very divisions that make constructive debate harder.

Public radicalisation is a threat to our democracy, which is in fact, one of the best in the world.

In addition to Helen Haines’ attack, let’s reflect on some of the things the public have been exposed to over the past year:

A Federal Queensland MP wanting to punch a reporter for asking a question.
A Federal Senator claiming all Muslims are bad, and blaming our Prime Minister for a terrorist attack.
A Federal Shadow Minister expressing that other MPs across the bench should be stoned publicly.

and so on...

This responsibility extends across parties and ideologies. Distrust in government is not confined to one political party, and neither is the responsibility to rebuild it.

The Growth of the Alternative Parties and Independents

The growing appeal of political alternatives, including One Nation, reflects a range of voter motivations. Some people are dissatisfied with government performance, others feel overlooked by established parties, and some are attracted to particular policies or candidates. Dismissing these voters as simply angry or extreme does little to understand their concerns -in fact, ignoring them makes them seek out people who will listen: often times to extremists who are ready to refocus this anger towards radicalisation.

Equally, frustration with the political establishment does not make every policy or statement from an alternative political voice acceptable. All political representatives should be held accountable for their words, conduct and decisions.

The challenge now is to re-build a political culture in which people feel represented without turning disagreement into hostility.

The cost of losing access

There is something particularly important about the relationship Australians have with their elected representatives, and that is, the ability to approach them, raise concerns, challenge decisions and advocate for change.

That access is a democratic asset worth protecting.

When political debate becomes dominated by hostility, personal attacks and public confrontation, it risks making those relationships harder to sustain. Politicians and their staff may face greater intimidation. Communities can lose opportunities for constructive dialogue precisely when they most need to be heard.

The result is counterproductive. People who already distrust government become more alienated, and politicians become harder to reach through meaningful engagement. The cycle reinforces itself: frustration leads to confrontation, confrontation damages relationships, and damaged relationships deepen frustration.

We should be asking how to break that cycle, not passively sleepwalking into intensifying it.

A lesson for the not-for-profit sector

At Tanck, we regularly encourage not-for-profit organisations to stop shouting at government and start building relationships that can deliver change.

That does not mean avoiding difficult conversations, abandoning advocacy or staying silent when policies are failing communities. Strong advocacy is essential to a healthy democracy. Organisations must be able to challenge decisions, present evidence and hold governments accountable in a constructive way.

Repeatedly escalating disputes through social media, issuing increasingly confrontational joint press releases or relying on public campaigns that leave little room for dialogue can sometimes undermine the very outcomes organisations are pursuing. These tactics may attract attention, but attention alone does not guarantee influence.

Collective action can be powerful when organisations work together around clear objectives. It becomes less effective when collaboration is reduced to amplifying outrage.

Rebuilding trust requires more than condemning violence.

Political violence must be condemned unequivocally. But if we are serious about preventing it, we also need to address the distrust, disconnection and increasingly hostile discourse that can fuel it.

Australia should be proud of a democracy in which people can disagree with their representatives, challenge government decisions and seek access to those in power without fear. Protecting that tradition requires more than condemning violence after it occurs. It requires a commitment to keeping democratic relationships open.

We should not confuse the loudest voice with the most effective one.