Cartel-like behaviour or not?

In a modern democracy like Australia, political parties are the main drivers of change. But what happens when those same political parties are reluctant to change?  What happens when modern democratic reform occurs in the Parliament but not in the parties themselves?  And to what extent does this create a breeding ground for a 'cartel-like' party system to exist in Australia?  

In order to analyse these questions sufficiently, we clearly need to work with a definition of 'party systems' and likewise one for 'cartelisation'.

"A party system concerns the system of government by political parties in a democratic country" (Sartori, 2005).  

In essence, these political parties control the government. They usually have a strong base of popular support and they oversee and manage the internal mechanics of funding, information and nominations of candidates to represent the party platform and organisation.

Giovanni Sartori (1973) devised the most noteworthy model and widely used classification for political party systems around the world. His key thesis centered around the number of 'relevant parties' in the political landscape and the level of fragmentation in that party system.  Sartori defines relevant parties as "those who have a realistic chance of forming government".  However, it is worth noting that these parties often form coalitions with minor parties, both in a formal, and informal setting.  

Cartelisation, on the other hand, has been highlighted in many Hollywood movies, fiction and non-fiction literature.  Often referred to in relation to the many Drug-cartels that operate in regions like the Americas and throughout Europe.

In an economic sense however, a 'cartel' is defined "as a group of firms that get together to make output and price decisions (Blyth & Katz, 2005)".  They might do this in collusion, away from regulators, and illegally.  In particular, cartels often form in markets where there are few firms and each has a significant existing market share.  This could be likened to many two-party political systems, like in Australia.

I contend that -

1. The definitions of cartels and how they operate in other sectors of the economy do somewhat align to the two-party political system.  One can draw these same conclusions about the Australian system;
2. The lack of significant competition for ideas, as it operates in capitalists’ markets for example, is lacking in the Australian political party system. Thus, the appetite for change by the parties is low.  As is the motivation for change by other political actors, especially when considering those in power now, are indeed the same people to be affected (perhaps adversely) by any major democratic reforms in the party-system in future; and finally
3. Whilst the Australian two-party political system does demonstrate some aspects and likeness to cartel-like behaviour. The truth of the matter is, that in comparison to many South American, African and Asian nations, Australia is somewhat inconsequential when it comes to cartelization in politics.  Even Canada and countries in Western Europe demonstrate more of the typical cartel-like indicators than Australia does.

Interested in your thoughts and observations.  Consider issues around climate change, education, international-aid, defence funding and major infrastructure in your contemplations.