The Politicization of Heroism: One Nation’s Risky Gambit in the Farrer By-Election
There’s something deeply unsettling about the way One Nation has chosen to campaign in the Farrer by-election. By plastering corflutes with the image of Ben Roberts-Smith, a man accused of war crimes, the party isn’t just endorsing a controversial figure—it’s weaponizing the very idea of military service. Personally, I think this move is less about supporting veterans and more about exploiting a divisive narrative to score political points. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reveals the lengths to which some parties will go to tap into public sentiment, even if it means trampling over ethical boundaries.
The Hero Narrative: A Double-Edged Sword
One Nation’s slogan, ‘He fought for us. One Nation stands with him,’ is a masterclass in emotional manipulation. On the surface, it’s a tribute to a decorated soldier. But dig deeper, and it’s a calculated attempt to frame Roberts-Smith as a martyr, a victim of a system that dares to question his actions. From my perspective, this isn’t just about standing by a veteran—it’s about hijacking the symbolism of military service to shield someone from accountability. What many people don’t realize is that by doing so, One Nation risks undermining the very institutions it claims to uphold. The ADF’s polite but firm request for political parties to avoid using military imagery in campaigns isn’t just bureaucratic red tape—it’s a reminder that the military should remain apolitical.
The Sub Judice Dilemma: Playing with Fire
One of the most troubling aspects of this campaign is its potential to interfere with ongoing legal proceedings. Roberts-Smith is facing serious charges, and the principle of sub judice exists for a reason: to ensure a fair trial, free from external influence. In my opinion, One Nation’s public endorsement of Roberts-Smith isn’t just politically tone-deaf—it’s legally reckless. As Professor David Rolph pointed out, courts have historically taken a dim view of public commentary that could prejudice a trial. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about Roberts-Smith’s case; it’s about the integrity of our justice system. By inserting itself into this narrative, One Nation is gambling with the very foundations of due process.
The Veteran Community: Caught in the Crossfire
What this really suggests is that the veteran community is being used as a political pawn. Richard Hendrie, a Greens candidate and veteran himself, articulated this perfectly when he expressed discomfort with veterans being dragged into political discourse. I find it especially interesting that One Nation claims to champion veterans while simultaneously exploiting their service for political gain. This raises a deeper question: Are we truly honoring veterans by using their sacrifices as campaign props? Or are we reducing their experiences to soundbites and slogans?
The Broader Implications: When Politics Meets Morality
This campaign isn’t just a local issue—it’s a microcosm of a larger trend in global politics. From Trump’s embrace of controversial figures to Modi’s use of nationalism in India, we’re seeing a pattern of leaders and parties leveraging divisive narratives to rally their base. What’s happening in Farrer is a stark reminder of how easily morality can be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. Personally, I think this is a dangerous game. By normalizing the politicization of sensitive issues, we risk eroding public trust in both our political and judicial systems.
Final Thoughts: A Line Crossed?
As I reflect on One Nation’s campaign, I’m left with a lingering unease. Is this the kind of politics we want to normalize? One where the presumption of innocence is weaponized, where the military is dragged into partisan battles, and where the veteran community is exploited for votes? In my opinion, this isn’t just a misstep—it’s a line crossed. And if we’re not careful, it could set a precedent that will haunt us for years to come.
