One Nation’s rapid rise has left political science and orthodox analysis struggling to explain why a chaotic party with little policy depth and a dismal parliamentary record has suddenly become a major force in Australian politics.

The five-fold surge in support for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, from about six per cent to about 30 per cent since the 3 May, 2025, federal election, is confounding orthodox political science.

Traditional political science does not have adequate tools. Political analysts are struggling to catch up, just as political science has by and large been confounded by the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, Nigel Farage in the UK and equivalent European developments.

This is not to say that political science doesn’t have some useful tools. These tools can address conventional political questions about party structure, policies, fundraising, parliamentary performance, candidate selection, social media strategy and so on.

They can examine preference distribution in recent elections. They can conclude that Australian party politics is now a three-cornered contest between Labor, the Coalition, and One Nation – or a five-cornered contest if the Greens and independents are included.

They can also point to instructive international parallels. All that is helpful.

But faced with trying to explain the dramatic surge in voter support, political science is much less useful.

Political scientists look at One Nation and see a party with a leader who has a truly unimpressive parliamentary record – no experience of government other than recent Nationals recruit Barnaby Joyce, precious little policy development or practical........

© The New Daily