Power and silence: The strategy of saying nothing

Some of the most consequential forces in politics are the ones you cannot see or hear, but their impact is unmistakable. Silence is one of them. 

In political systems, silence is not an accident; it is an instrument. It protects, signals, excludes, and advances power. Over time, it becomes one of power’s most reliable tools.

When former Australian of the Year Grace Tame was described by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently as “difficult“, it revealed something familiar to anyone who has watched power closely: directness is often treated as a problem when it disrupts comfort.

From the outside, silence can look like apathy, cowardice, or complicity. From the inside, it rarely feels that way. Instead, silence is framed as professionalism, loyalty, and strategy, and knowing when to pick your battles.

In earlier parts of this series, I examined the personalities that thrive in politics and the reasons good people leave. This is about what happens in between.

How silence is taught

Very few people enter politics intending to stay silent. Most arrive with energy, conviction, and a belief that good ideas which are clearly argued will find their way through. They ask questions, flag risks, and push for clarity.

At first, this is tolerated; sometimes even briefly welcomed, until it begins to disrupt the equilibrium. Then the feedback shifts: Be careful. Not yet. Let’s not escalate this. Silence rarely feels like surrender; it feels like pragmatism. 

The human instinct for belonging often comes before the instinct for disruption. What people learn quickly and without instruction is that speaking up carries a cost. Silence, by contrast, often carries reward. Silence keeps you in the room. It preserves access and signals alignment. Knowing when to default to it keeps doors open that close quickly for those who become inconvenient.

These cultural norms do not need to be announced explicitly; people quietly absorb them. As this dynamic takes hold, silence becomes habitual, then normalised. You do not wake up one day and decide to abandon your values — you simply stop voicing them. Eventually, you stop noticing their absence altogether.

At that point, silence is no longer just caution; it becomes a form of complicity. 

The economics of not speaking

Silence may be quiet, but it is rarely neutral inside political systems. When it is rewarded consistently, it reshapes behaviour. It teaches people that survival depends on restraint, that influence depends on alignment, and that the safest path is often the least disruptive one. 

Like any currency, silence accumulates value when others are willing to trade in it. Those who remain silent are often rewarded with proximity to decision-makers, reputational safety, and advancement. Those who speak too clearly, too early, or too persistently are quietly marked. They find themselves excluded from key conversations, reframed as difficult or emotional, and considered unpredictable. 

There is no memo or formal reprimand; just a gradual narrowing of space. And as this pattern settles in, people adjust.

Where power actually speaks

Much of what shapes outcomes never happens on the record, in meetings, or in formal exchanges. Conversations routinely migrate to encrypted platforms such as Signal or WhatsApp, where messages can be set to disappear within weeks, days or even hours, leaving little permanent record. The same dynamic unfolds elsewhere — in corridors, over hurried coffees, on “background”, and in hushed phone calls that leave no trace.

Formal authority is visible. Informal authority is decisive.

Here, reputations are shaped without evidence. Doubts are planted without attribution. Momentum shifts without anyone appearing responsible for it. No-one has said anything definitive, yet the tone and direction change. 

This is the space between speech and silence where power is often exercised most effectively. Messages still circulate; they just do so obliquely.

In these informal spaces, influence often builds through implication and suggestion. This ambiguity is extraordinarily effective. It allows the speaker to deny intent while still achieving impact. Once these signals begin circulating, they generate their own momentum. Decisions are quietly deferred. Access narrows. Allies hesitate. No-one ever says “don’t work with this person”. The message lands anyway.

The strategy of ‘no comment’

Silence in politics is not only relational, but an operational tactic. 

In political communications, when scrutiny emerges, “no comment” is a calculation. Advisers assess not only the substance of a claim, but the likely lifespan of the story. Sometimes the most effective way to neutralise attention is not to rebut it, but to deprive it of fresh material.

“No comment”, therefore, serves several purposes at once. It limits oxygen, avoids fresh angles, reduces quotable material, and shortens the news cycle. Often this happens in parallel with distraction. Attention is redirected as another issue is amplified. Nothing has been answered, but without new information, the media moves on.

Inside the system, this is framed as discipline. Message control. Risk management. From outside, it can feel like evasion.

This tactic has featured repeatedly in Australian political scandals. During the “sports rorts” grants controversy, ministers often declined to engage with detailed questions about how funding decisions were made. In the early reporting phases of Brittany Higgins’ allegations, the government limited comment on its internal handling.

As scrutiny of the robodebt scheme intensified, official responses often narrowed to tightly controlled statements while broader questions went unanswered. In these cases, the strategy ultimately failed as investigations and sustained reporting kept the issues alive. But the calculation behind “no comment” remains common: without new material entering the public domain, many stories struggle to maintain momentum.

The democratic consequence is subtle but significant. Accountability does not always collapse through denial. Sometimes it fades through exhaustion. Silence becomes a way to try to outlast scrutiny. And over time, the public learns that certain questions will not be answered — not because they lack merit, but because withholding information is deemed less costly than transparency.  

This is how silence moves from tactic to structure. It’s not loud enough to provoke outrage, not explicit enough to breach rules, but persistent enough to thin trust.

Systems do not fail only through corruption or crisis. They weaken when silence displaces scrutiny.

Alliances, factions and ambition

Politics is not an individual sport. Alliances — both formal and informal — determine who is protected and who is expendable. 

In international relations, alliances between countries shape influence, security arrangements, and diplomatic leverage. States align with partners whose support strengthens their position and protects shared interests.

Domestic political systems operate in similar ways. Within parties, alliances often take the form of factions. They are built over years and sustained by numbers. Personal affinity is optional. Power is the organising principle.

Within these networks, silence is read as loyalty. Speaking out can be reframed as betrayal — not of principle, but of people or relationships.

Recent examples illustrate how quickly this dynamic can surface. Liberal MPs Julia Banks and Bridget Archer both faced intense internal pressure after publicly breaking ranks with their party, while Senator Fatima Payman’s decision to defy party discipline on Gaza policy triggered swift isolation within Labor.

The same dynamic is visible with regard to the current situation in the Middle East. As reported in The Guardian, members of Labor’s right faction hold concerns about how quickly the government signed up to support US military actions against Iran, but declined to speak on the record for fear of being seen as “troublemakers”.

Ambition adapts to this environment. The most effective operators are rarely the loudest. They are the ones who read the alliance map instinctively, signal alignment without overcommitting, apply pressure indirectly, and allow others to carry visible risk.

The cost of speaking

For those who do speak — clearly and publicly — the consequences can be severe. Alliances close ranks, access disappears, and support evaporates. The message travels quickly: this person is no longer safe to associate with.

In political systems built on proximity to power, isolation is one of the most effective forms of discipline. Sometimes the response is quiet exclusion, sometimes it is reputational reframing, and sometimes it is swift and unmistakable. Again, Senator Payman’s brutal ostracism springs to mind.

Another dynamic is more uncomfortable: people who would ordinarily describe themselves as decent or “nice” can quickly become part of a protective mob when power is threatened. Individuals who might privately feel sympathy can fall silent and distant once alliances, power and careers are at stake.

Either way, the lesson travels far beyond the individual involved. Others watch and calculate. Many decide the cost of speaking is simply too high. This is how silence reproduces itself. Speaking up can cost career momentum, mental and physical health, and a sense of belonging. People either leave or fall quiet.

Why this matters beyond politics

These dynamics do not remain confined to politics. The same patterns appear in workplaces, institutions, and organisations everywhere. Power abuse often begins quietly, protected by hierarchy and fear. When power structures reward results while ignoring how those results are achieved, behaviour shifts. 

In this environment, silence normalised at the top quickly cascades outward. People hesitate to report misconduct because they doubt they will be believed. Witnesses stay silent because intervention carries risk. Leaders prioritise stability over accountability. 

Gradually, silence shifts from caution to complicity. Harm persists not because it is openly defended, but because too many people decide it is safer not to intervene. Abusive behaviour becomes normalised. Organisational silence takes hold. Employees adapt by disengaging, staying quiet, or leaving.

It is a system signalling that silence is safer than truth. Organisations learn that survival depends less on honesty than on manageability. 

Silence is not the same as wisdom

Not every moment calls for confrontation. Discernment and timing matter. But a system that consistently rewards silence over honesty reshapes itself.

When silence becomes the safest option in the room, only two types of people reliably thrive: those comfortable saying very little, and those adept at appearing to say something while committing to nothing. Everyone else adjusts or exits.

Political systems rarely demand participation in grand falsehoods. More often they rely on collective acquiescence to smaller distortions — narratives that everyone privately questions but publicly sustains.

These dynamics are not theoretical. They are visible in political life right now.

What courage looks like

We are living through a period of time where many consequential issues are unfolding at once: geopolitical instability, political polarisation, and institutional distrust. 

In these moments, systems often prefer quiet. Questions are discouraged. Critics are dismissed as disruptive. Speaking up is reframed as disloyalty.

Grace Tame has paid a visible price for her unflinching resolve not to soften her voice — evident by the sharp withdrawal of political support from Albanese and intense media scrutiny.

Silence, by contrast, is rarely criticised. It is rewarded. It discourages dissent and rewards manageability over truth. Ultimately, this does not produce stronger institutions. It produces more cautious ones, and caution is not the same as integrity.

We also see it in geopolitics when leaders choose careful silence on issues after calculating that saying less carries fewer consequences than speaking plainly. This year, the prime minister’s notable reluctance to publicly question aspects of the United States’ actions has been widely interpreted in that light: silence as loyalty.

As Elie Wiesel warned: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Courage in politics is not only about speaking truth to power. Sometimes it is about refusing to participate in narratives that no longer hold. Sometimes it is about leaving — and naming why.

Silence can be strategic. It can be prudent. Sometimes it is necessary. But when silence becomes the dominant currency of power, something essential begins to erode: public trust weakens, accountability fades, and the truth becomes negotiable.

Democracies rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment. They erode gradually in the spaces where speech disappears. 

Silence may serve power. Democracy depends on those willing to question it.

---

Authors Note:

This is the third piece in my series on power. It was first published in Crikey. The series is not written to discourage engagement in politics. It is written to deepen literacy about how power operates - for those inside institutions, those challenging them from outside, and those trying to understand why meaningful reform can feel so difficult, but remain determined to seek better.