The Captor State: How Oligarchic and Imperial Control Drives Australia’s Political Duopoly Toward Extremism
The sickness in Australian politics is often diagnosed as a stagnant duopoly. This is a symptom, not the cause. The Labor-Coalition stalemate, the policy convergence, and the rightward drift are not failures of the system – they are the system working as designed. Australia is a captor state, its political machinery controlled by oligarchic interests that are, in turn, embedded in a wider imperial framework. This reality explains why meaningful choice is an illusion and why this vacuum of genuine representation creates fertile ground for extremism.
The Mirage of Choice in an Oligarchic State
The Australian political landscape is trapped in a duopoly not because of voter preference, but because it serves a specific power structure. As observed, the key difference between Russia and the West is that “in Russia the state controls the oligarchs. In the West, the reverse is true.”
This inversion of power is the engine of our political entropy. The “GOGO frame” of Government-Opposition is a managed competition between two brands owned by the same parent company. The major crises – from the housing disaster and environmental collapse to the surrender of defence autonomy – are not problems the duopoly fails to solve, but often outcomes it is designed to produce for the benefit of its owners. The system is not broken; it is captured.
This capture ensures that whether the government changes, the underlying policies that serve oligarchic and corporate interests – from supporting new fossil fuel projects to the lucrative AUKUS submarine deal – remain untouched.
The Imperial Cog: The Logic of Subservience
The duopoly’s behaviour cannot be understood without acknowledging Australia’s role as, in the words of Clinton Fernandes, a “Subimperial Power.” Our oligarchs are not independent; they are part of bigger business ties integrated with our “Great and Powerful Friend.”
This imperial context dictates a bipartisan consensus on fundamental issues:
Foreign and Defence Policy: The AUKUS agreement is not merely a defence pact; it is a tribute payment and a strategic surrender of sovereignty, locking Australia into a designated role within an imperial military structure.
Economic Policy: Our commitment as a fossil fuel quarry is not an economic necessity but our assigned part in the imperial supply chain, prioritising external demand over domestic environmental and energy needs.
Social Policy: The brutal, bipartisan consensus on offshore detention serves as a loyalty signal to the nativist agendas prevalent in the imperial core, demonstrating Australia’s reliability as a junior partner.
The much-lamented “policy convergence” is, therefore, a natural outcome. Both parties are triangulating not just for domestic votes, but to prove their fidelity to the overarching imperial and oligarchic system that grants them their legitimacy and power.
The Manufactured Vacuum and the Rise of Extremism
When a political system is openly unresponsive to the people it supposedly serves, it creates a crisis of legitimacy. The duopoly’s service to its captors directly fuels the conditions for extremism:
The Erosion of Trust: When citizens perceive – correctly – that their vote does not change the fundamental direction of the state, trust evaporates. A majority of Australians now view politicians as untrustworthy, a fundamental challenge to democracy.
A Sense of Voicelessness: When the formal political process is a sham, people seek other outlets. Widespread feelings of political powerlessness create a ripe audience for movements that claim to represent the “silent majority” against a “corrupt system.”
Exploitation of Division: A captured duopoly, focused on “culture war” issues rather than solving real problems, is ill-equipped to address social divisions. This allows extremist groups to position themselves as the only authentic opposition to a rigged game.
Reclamation, Not Reform
Confronting this threat requires recognising that the problem is not within the political system, but the system itself. Tinkering with reforms is insufficient. The goal must be the decolonisation of the Australian state from its oligarchic and imperial captors.
This involves:
Dismantling the Duopoly’s Stranglehold: Using our electoral system to fracture the two-party control and force a diverse crossbench that is not beholden to the same masters.
Asserting National Sovereignty: Rejecting our assigned role as a sub-imperial cog and forging an independent foreign and economic policy based on the needs of the Australian people and the stability of our region.
Reclaiming Political Voice: Building power outside the captured institutions, demonstrating that true governance derives from the people, not from the approval of oligarchic or imperial interests.
The dance of the duopoly is a performance to mask a silent takeover. The greatest evil is enabled by the quiet decay of accountability. The system has been abandoned by those who were meant to steward it. It is now our duty to expose the captors, articulate the truth of our subjugation, and reclaim the state for its rightful owners – the people. The alternative is a vacuum that will be filled by the very worst of what we have allowed to grow in the shadows.
Many thanks to @JustinGlynSJ for his contribution to this article.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team

Absolutely spot on. Australia’s democracy has been quietly hijacked by a two-party system serving oligarchic and foreign interests. The real power still lies with the people, if we vote strategically to break this duopoly. Every independent or minor-party vote chips away at their control. Change won’t come from within the system, but from citizens refusing to accept false choices. It’s time to reclaim our democracy and use our vote to serve the public purpose, not corporate profit.
#BreakTheDuopoly #VoteIndependent #SocialJusticeAustralia #ReclaimDemocracy
Excellent article.One of the biggest problems we have is the role of a complicit media landscape,especially Murdoch’s garbage, who are all basically acting as stenogaphers for the string pullers,the duopoly being the executive arm of the oligarchs and the corporations,mainly the fossil fuel planet killers.
Another problem we have, of long standing,is a general public apathy to things that might be too confronting to face.
If they think that wealth is going to save them from the coming cataclysm,they are sadly mistaken.Climate change doesn’t accept money.
I am entirely in favour of diminishing the 2 party system.
So… I chose to join the Australian Democrats. I don’t agree with every policy they advocate, but they are progressive and environmentally (and economically) responsible. They are responsive to their membership.
Importantly they have a policy structure and leadership.
You know what they stand for.
The Democrats have a free supporter level membership, what is to lose by supporting them and assisting them to maintain formal party status?
https://www.democrats.org.au/civicrm/contribute/transact/?page=CiviCRM&q=civicrm%2Fcontribute%2Ftransact&reset=1&id=4
Leadership and a coherent policy structure certainly isn’t the case with Teals and independents. They are far too inclined to (individually) make it up as they go, an indulgence that can be managed when there are a handful, but would result in chaos if they were represented in greater numbers.
While I think the current federal government is going well in most areas, I’ve held for many years that the structure of the ALP is unbalanced and open to manipulation, if not corruption.
This is its significant deficiency.
Meanwhile, the deficiencies of the Liberals are too numerous to begin to detail. Suffice to say they are out of touch with rational, mainstream voters. They are deeply and apparently irreconcilably divided.
The best option is to join and participate in a small(ish) party that largely reflects your political orientation
one African leader stands up to the oligargic state. refer to https://www.facebook.com/reel/1421592106055472
Many thanks Andrew for this accurate assessment.
Like yourself, I support the aptness of Clinton Fernandez’ description of Aust.
As you rightly imply, unless treated, the prognosis is terminal decline at best; and at worst, “…a vacuum that will be filled by the very worst of what we have allowed to grow in the shadows.”
PS. When you next speak with Justin, can you pass on my thanks for his perceptive essay in Pearls and Irritations.
Hmmm. History reveals that humans go through cycles of ‘anarchic’ blood-baths, quelled by controlling alliances, and back again for many and varied reasons. Among the ‘controls’ have been religion, hot wars, cold wars, trade and tech. Not much has in the way of ‘needs’ changed, maybe however ‘wants’ have been affected by notions of universal suffrage, human rights and the sophistication of influence, and those are captured by the critical mass of respective independent cultures.
There have been perpetual proclamations and writs made about the nature of existence, and the dimensions of control. All of which are affected by culture, and seldom attain consensus due to dissent over nuances, a failure to grasp elusive realities, or the exposure of ulterior motives.
As the sophistication of language advanced, by mid-19thC the use of ‘isms’ and ‘ists’ arose as a device of political convenience, mainly, instead of issues being subject to discursive logic, they were used to simplistically and collectively back or repudiate those of certain leanings. This habit typically arose when influencers and decision-makers were confronted by complexities and confusion, and wished to either maintain the status quo, or rush to change.
Following late 19thC and 20thC wars lessons were learned, and various attempts (and errors) were made to stem forever the blood-baths. After WWII, in hope, the UN was formed, and concurrently, since, the world population has burgeoned from 2.5 billion to 8.5 billion (at mid-19thC it was about 1 billion).
Meeting the ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ of those populations has of course been a prodigious task, requiring collaboration across cultures, politically and via tech. With competition being both a stimulator, and a handbrake, the post-imperialist ‘West’ is clinging on to parts of its brutality in vain whilst crumbling. The bling and built edifices are sucking on life, and tech has moved way beyond our maturity in its application. The quest for resources, and the naming of the anthropocene are reigniting notions of supremacy and driving panic, and panic is anathema to collaboration.
In such circumstance, it could be said that old ‘divide and conquer’ politics and/or the wiles of the individual are counter-productive in the now immutable realm of interdependence. In the alternative, alliances may make for more simple and effective listening and collaboration globally to bring effect to a beneficial critical mass.
Yes, a clever article and one that helps. I thought the shop-front comments were good and agree.
Good stuff from Clakka.