The discussion about the appointment of the next Governor-General has brought about a reappearance of some of the tendencies which led to the republican cause self-destructing in the late 1990s.
Before discussing these, however, it’s only fair that I acknowledge the extent to which Australia’s key republican organisations and many leading republican individuals have taken on board the lessons of the 1999 referendum. At a Griffith University-sponsored conference in November 2002, leading minimalist republican intellectuals such as Glyn Davis, George Winterton and Paul Kelly stated that, their personal preferences notwithstanding, the republican cause in Australia could only progress if the direct election option was seriously considered. Australia’s three most important republican political organisations - the Labor Party, the Greens and the Australian Republican Movement - are fundamentally in agreement about the process by which Australians should decide whether, and in what form, Australia becomes a republic, namely a series of plebiscites on the general principle of support for a republic and choice of a method of electing the head of state culminating in a constitutional referendum. The ARM accepts that models based on direct election should be seriusly considered as part of this process.
Nonetheless, there are still some slow learners in some republican quarters.
Gerard Henderson re-entered the republican debate on Tuesday 22 January with a Sydney Morning Herald column which restated his support for an Australian republic entailed “minimal constitutional change”, but without putting forward a single positive argument for this position. The first half of the column consisted of ridicule of the British Royal Family. The latter part expressed regret that disunity amongst Australian republicans had led to the defeat of the 1999 referendum - and then, presumably in what Henderson thought was a spirit of unity, proceeded to make snarky personal attacks on individual direct election republicans.
Henderson’s effort was followed by a letter in today’s SMH by a Des Withall, which also regrets republican disunity - and then goes on to caricature the direct election position in Australia as entailing advocacy of a US-style system of “popular election”.
We see here a reappearance of some fundamental failings of the minimalist republican campaign in 1999:
* failure to argue a positive case for the minimalist model which was put forward at that referendum;
* negative snark towards the monarchy and the personnel therein; and most seriously
* denigration of direct election supporters and of their position (including self-righteous cant about “republican disunity” and about where the blame for this should lie).
I elaborated on the first and third of these points in a referendum post-mortem I wrote for the Griffith University newspaper Gravity in 2000 which was reproduced at Workers Online, and so I won’t repeat those arguments here, beyond reiterating that continuing popular support for direct election is the elephant in the room in the republic debate.
The second point might seem somewhat odd coming from a post-Marxist radical democrat Green like myself, but it is not a trivial issue in terms of the practicalities of winning a referendum on an Australian republic. There are, I believe, Australians (especially older Australians) who are potentially open to the general in-principle arguments for Australia to become a republic, yet who also have an abiding personal respect and affection for Queen Elizabeth. Gratuitously dissing the Queen and those around her not only does not constitute a positive argument for any kind of republic, it is also likely to get these people’s backs up to the point where they won’t want to listen to such arguments.
Another huge error of Australian republicanism in the 1990s was the mantra that an Australian republic is “inevitable”. The chant has been resumed by Jason Koutsoukis, writing in the Sun-Herald on 20 January that the next Governor-General would be “probably the last”, and by Greg Craven who asserts in today’s Australian that “we move inexorably towards a republic”. As well as being incorrect, the discourse of THE INEVITABLE REPUBLIC is counter-productive to the republican cause in a number of ways.
Firstly, the belief in the inevitable victory of one’s political cause leads to behaviours which are not conducive to that cause. It leads to complacency, and to laziness about formulating and articulating arguments which can persuade the unconverted that the success of the cause is desirable, rather than something they should roll over and resign themselves to. It can lead to incivility and arrogance towards those holding alternative or opposing views, which is both bad in itself and unattractive to those who need to be convinced.
Second, the discourse of inevitable victory attracts the wrong sort of person to a movement, the sort of person described thus by Dostoyevsky:
He adhered to the cause of progress and ‘our younger generations’ as a kind of enthusiastic pastime. He was one of that countless and multifarious legion of vulgar persons, sickly abortions and half-educated petty tyrants who like a flash attach themselves to those current ideas which are most fashionable in order, again like a flash, to vulgarize them, caricaturing the very cause they seek to serve, sometimes with great genuineness.
As a close follower of the republic debate in op-ed columns, letters pages and internet discussion sites during 1997-99, I have to say that the ARM attracted this kind of person like flies to a cow paddock (I distinctly remember one of them laughing in my face when I raised with her my objections to a particularly nasty bit of anti-direct election sectarianism by Malcolm Turnbull), and that their inveterate self-aggrandisement and snarkiness towards direct electionists would have swollen the “No” vote considerably. (I also should reiterate that the ARM has moved on considerably since then.)
Thirdly, the discourse of the inevitable republic had an effect on some voters in 1999 quite the opposite of what might have been expected. My ex-partner voted “No” in 1999, part of her reasoning being that “a republic’s inevitable, if they don’t get it right this time around and we vote it up we’re stuck with it, but if we vote it down it’ll be back on the agenda some day and hopefully by then they’ll get it right.” This kind of attitude - that a “No” vote in 1999 would not be the end of the republican cause but merely a postponement of the inevitable until it was the right kind of inevitable - was probably not confined to my ex.
As I stated earlier, these and other pathological tendencies of Australian republicanism are less prevalent than they were in the 1990s. However they haven’t been eradicated, and those republican opinion leaders such as Davis, Winterton, Kelly and the ARM who have learned the lessons from that period would do well to be vigilant against them
Great post, Paul. I personally don’t care one way or the other (something that perplexes English friends), but I’ll be sending them this link to explain the background.
Any referendum put on the question will have to include an option to vote for a directly elected head of state. In those circumstances, the option will need to be carefully argued to ensure that claims from minimilists like Henderson and the execrable Kelly concerning the potential conflict between an elected Parliament and an elected president, are dealt with. Presumably having a Parliament that overwhelmingly supported the establishment of a republic would assist in ensuring that the various options were able to be failry debated.
I agree with your comments about gratuitous dissing of the current royals. It is vulgar and pointless because it is utterly irrelevant to the task of campaigning for the change sought, and in fact has the potential to derail the campaign since a significant section of the electorate who support a Republic, have no particular beef with the Queen, and a significant section of older Australians actively like and ’support’ her. Henderson has an obvious ‘chip’ on his shoulder about the constitutional arrangments in the UK, and while I agree they are beyond parody in the 21st century, they are also, ultimately, simply irrelevant to the nature of the democratic arrangements in this country, except insofar as they provide a handy way for Henderson to demonstrate his capacity for generating sound and fury about nothing, as a means of making a living.
Never understood the argument for a series of plebiscites. Any in principle vote in favour of the idea of a republic will not lock monarchists in behind any constitional referendum, Flint et. al. will run demagogic arguments against direct election just as they did against parliamentary appointment. Govt should bite the bullet admit that direct election is the only way to a republic, set up a process to draft the required constitional amendments and have a referendum.
Great post, Paul.
If the direct election crowd wants to play anything other than a spoiler role this time around, could they please agree amongst themselves on one, or a small number of models, and flesh them out in detail, so that their merits and flaws can be honestly debated?
Personally, I defy anybody to put together a direct election model that achieves acceptance by anyone on the other side of politics - and, whether we like it or not, the chances of passing a republic referendum without their support is minimal.
Geoff,
the rationale for the first plebiscite is that it will, once and for all, (hopefully) deprive the monarchists of the argument that Australians want to retain the monarchy.
The second plebiscite then gives the chance for the merits and flaws of the various models to be scrutinized, and hopefully the model which has the best chance of getting passed at an actual referendum will get up.
Henderson’s a Catholic, and it gets on his goat that the sovereign can’t be a Catholic or marry one.
It’s a reasonable complaint in itself, but a minor issue in the local context.
Turnbull’s evident ability to turn an argument that should be winnable on its merits, into a big loss, by attracting dodgy supporters, making gratuitous insults, and general hubris and arrogance, might cause his parliamentary colleagues to wonder whether he should succeed the hapless Nelson.
Incidentally, where is Brendan? The holiday season is over and he hasn’t been sighted. Did he get taken by a shark while at the beach and nobody notice?
The last referendum definitely went down because of the directly elected president issue. I suspect this was partially to do with confusion between the roles of the Australian president and that of the American president. I wonder if John Howard understood that. Given that the referendum process had an assembly decide on the mode of republic put to the vote rather than us deciding: do you want a republic and then what republic do you want, I suspect he did. His way of observing due process and battling for the Queen at the same time. Wiley little coyote.
>
I also wonder about the veracity of the argument that a directly elected president would have more power than an appointed one. Why would this be necessarilly so if the constitution restrains the position adequately?
>
Besides all that do we really need a republic. Romantic aspirations and the ambitions to history aside, what’s the point? I remember Mr Turnball giving some talk in support of it. The best practical argument he had was he found it difficult to explain our system of governance to business associates in the PRC.
>
So what?
>
However there are arguments - practical ones - for maintaining the monarchy. The monarchy does not make policy, in fact it’s only function appears to be the ratification of a governor-general recommended by parliament. Hence in de facto terms we are a republic.
>
Republics however are prone to certain difficulties. When Al Gore was questioned re why he didn’t persist in fighting the Supreme Court decision in favour of Bush he indicated that to do so might precipitate a civil war. The legal advantage of our system is that the monarchy can disssolve the Houses, appoint a caretaker and cause elections to be held ASAP. As undesirable as this is, it’s preferable to civil war is it not?
>
It just seems to me that many of the arguments for and against the republic have everything to do with personal sentiments about the monarchy and not much to do with the practical business of a functioning nation. I’d like to have an answer to the question: what difference does it make? ‘Cause if it doesn’t make all that much maybe we can spend the money on something else.
Interestingly enough, right-of-centre supporters of direct election did emerge during the 1990s, most notably Peter Reith and Kate Carnell amongst practising politicians, but also Padraic P. McGuinness and the late Patrick O’Brien, so the difficulty is not insuperable. However, the issue which amused raised (of the relationship between the elected HOS and the elected Parliament) gets us into the knotty question of whether agreement can be reached on codification of the reserve powers, whether it might also be necessary to review the Senate’s power to refuse Supply, and whether these issues can be debated without segueing into a partisan history war about 1975.
The charms of a republican Head of State escape me. The republicans have never explained what we gain by ridding ourselves of the Monarch, apart from yet another politician.
But we all know what we would lose, which is a certain grandeur in the higher realms of state.
Following Bagehot’s dignified-efficient distinction, the Westminster HoS has evolved into a largely ceremonial position, which is a hereditary office. Ministerial work is done by…elected ministers.
The question then boils down to: who does ceremony better, the British firm known as “the Windsors”, specialists in pomp and circumstance for almost a millennium? Or the latest Republican exterior decorator crawl out of the woodwork?
The answer is self-evident: the Windsors are made for the job. Why change?
Which makes things even more difficult, because such a move would almost certainly ensure the referndum loses in Tasmania. The no case would only have to pull off a win in two other states then.
Here’s an idea. The only thing we change is we cut the link to the British sovereign.
The GG would still be appointed by the PM and would retain the same vaguely defined powers as at present. No need to codify anything, or worry about about setting up conflicting power bases.
True, the GG and PM could sack each other on a whim, but so what? In effect, that can happen now.
I read Turnbull’s book and liked the minimalist argument he put forth because, let’s face it, the constitution’s not that bad and there’s no need to go and change large chunks when all we want is a republic.
I don’t favour direct election but I do recognise the difference in roles between the Australian and American Presidents. Most Australians aren’t concerned with whether or not someone understands the constitution and the reserve powers and would be happy to vote for whoever any given party endorses. Seeing as the Australian President would be a re-named Governor-General rather than an American President, there’s no need for the candidates to belong to any one party. As a result, I’m more than happy with the model whereby a 2/3 majority of a joint sitting of parliament elects the President. The Australian people don’t want an American executive, so don’t give them one.
I don’t have a problem with the Queen and I don’t see the point in attacking anyone based on their choice of republic model. We want a republic, so let’s get that referendum passed and then work on getting the model sorted out.
The Senate’s power of rejecting supply is probably useful bit of accountability. It would take a brave Opposition Senate whip to use it though. Fraser and Gingrich both tried it on but folded or would have folded when it came to crunch time. Kerr was an anomaly.
Direct election of HoS would be a awful mess and a boondoggle, for no apparent gain in accountability. Currently the executive is accountable to the legislative branch in Parliament. At least the real HoS (the PM) has to to stand up and face the music every day.
A directly elected HoS would only be accountable to popular will once every three years. S/he would have all the authority that goes with popular legitimacy. It would introduce a whole new branch of government with its own bureaucracy and agenda - mostly aimed at self-sustenance and aggrandizement (the true policy of all policy makers.)
Liberal-leftists would serve their cause better if they bent their minds to the knotty task of making public institutions more accountable. Government is bound to get bigger. The Left badly needs to convince the public that government can manage tax-payers money more effectively.
Ideological attention should be focused to propriety rather than identity politics.
Adrien and Jack are both onto something important, which I wrote about in 2006.
As someone who migrated to Australia from Ireland as a kid, I enthusiastically supported the republican campaign in 99 (I was about sixteen at the time).
A decade later I couldn’t give a shit. the whole thing is a feckin waste of time if you ask me - at least so long as the anti-democratic Reserve Powers of the Governor General remain in place, as they certainly would.
So what’s the difference - except that our next Kerr would be invested with a throne of his own?
There are a hundred other things about the Australian political system that could be changed that would actually make a positive difference. What good does it do replacing the ridiculous King Charles with, say, “Ray Martin for President”.
The monarchy, by its very absurdity and redundancy, denies the office of “Head of State” any legitimate political authority, which is probably a good thing. Since the office is entirely ceremonial, I’d rather make Uluru our President, if we have to have one at all.
The whole Republican movement is as much of a “luvvie leftist” (urgh! can’t believe I typed that) beatup as you could ever expect to find. Silver-spoon-up-the-arsecrack Turnbull is the perfect embodiment of the campaign.
yeti Jan 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
You grew up quick, kid.
Paul whether these issues can be debated without segueing into a partisan history war about 1975.
>
>
>
Expecting one any minute now.
Jack - The question then boils down to: who does ceremony better, the British firm known as “the Windsors�, specialists in pomp and circumstance for almost a millennium?
>
A great example of personal sentiment for the monarchy. The ‘Windsors’ (Saxe-Coburg-Gothe) I hope you realize have not been the rulers of Britain for a thousand years. There’s the Houses Tudor, Stuart, York, Lancaster and Plantagenet etc. Funnilly enough the Plantagenet’s are still supposedly the rightful heirs to the throne. Cheated by them scummy Tudow upstarts. The legitimate King of England apparently lives in rural NSW and is a republican.
Funny old world, innit?
The problem with direct election, as Jack (13) points out, is that giving the president popular legitimacy while he/she retains the virtually unlimited power the G-G has under the Constitution is a recipe for unintentionally creating an executive presidency. Even codifying the powers of a directly elected president would be problematic, because we want them to have the power to block legislation or dismiss the PM/government in circumstances where the Commonwealth is threatened, but there’s no obvious way to codify these significant powers while ensuring that they are only used in exceptional circumstances. We’d have to rely on the convention about not using the reserve powers, which stems from the head of state being unelected, continuing to be respected in a situation where the head of state is elected.
I can’t really see a way around this problem in a direct-election model, other than relying on the High Court to contain the president somehow, perhaps through some sort of constitutional specification that the reserve powers should only be used in extreme circumstances. But I don’t think it’d be possible to phrase that specifically, which gives the Court too much leeway. Since the High Court has not been averse to moving the system away from what the framers intended (see: the entire history of Australian federalism), I’m not sure if we could count on it to retain the present relationship between parliament and head of state.
Jack,
More or less mirrors my position on the republic - the question was asked and lost. Deal with it. Do something useful with your life. If it ever gets to the point where the Monarchy is threatening something (anything) then we can deal with it fairly quickly.
More plebiscites? More referenda? Spend the money on something that will actually do something - or, better yet - do not spend it at all.
#18 - Good reason not to do it. Now can we have a reason to do it? I mean no-one likes the idea of King Chuck the Third but so what? It’s not like he can make laws. He’s just a rubber stamp in a blazer.
I voted for the minimalist republic option in 1999, and I’d do it again. There’s no way I want someone holding the reserve powers of the Governor General thinking they have a mandate to use them, see themselves as the government’s opposition, or even in a position to settle a personal spat with a prime minister. I’m happy to see crusty, tame lawyers, bishops, and less happy - superannuated politicians, filling the post forever.
If someone found a way to neuter the position then I’d consider an elected president. The problem is that the role of GG - with its reserve powers - is a neccessary circuit breaker for our system, and I don’t think there’s room for two positions in the country’s imagination.
1975 was a traumatic event for a HSC student just recovering from exams, but I accept now that Kerr had little choice but to dissolve parliament and call an election. Putting it back to the people and letting them decide is always the best option when democracy hits a stalemate.
People might think Kerr more noble if he’d resigned immediately after the newly elected government was formed. As it was I don’t think I’m alone in remembering him as a low-rent Charles I, which I guess would have been appropriate if we were still under the House of Stewart.
CraigMc,
So you like the current position, but are prepared to pay more taxes to change a symbol? You may forgive me if I think that odd.
AR: It’s only a symbol - I can’t argue there. And I can’t argue that it’ll cost money to do either. You got me. Feel free to think it odd.
One thing we have to do is to drop this tragic pose about a “Republic.” We already live in one FFS.
The cost is piffling and irrelevant.
The movers and shakers in the republican movement are domestic elites disgruntled with a foreign elite having a monopoly on the top dog’s job. Thats why you find so many celebrities, financiers and lawyers behind the republican push.
Its a form of status anxiety. No doubt amplified by their ancient memories of the trek to London and being put-off by very-U types at parties in Knightsbridge with their “couldn’t live anywhere else but SW1″, “she married an Aust-tralian [gasp]” and so on. I got over it, so should they.
The populist reaction against the republic was based on a sound instinct. If one must be snubbed by the lordy types, better it happen in a land far away by the real thing rather than close to home by pretenders.
Robert Merkel
I voted No last time and I am certainly no “monarchist!”
I can’t see the need for a republic. If it ain’t that broke, don’t fix it. Having an elected President is just a case of giving a politician more power to abuse. Do you actually believe if some-one like JWH got elected President -and you can bet the power mad little creep would give it a go if we bacame a republic with an elected President in the near future - they would not abuse the power. Not on your Nelly.
The problem, Craig, is that the minimalist republican camp failed to convince the punters after eight years of (well resourced, well organised, powerfully supported) trying between 1991 and 1999, and only got as close as 45 per cent because a majority of the direct election advocates in public life, and slightly over half of the direct election supporters in the general population, were prepared to give the model on offer a second preference vote ahead of the status quo. Any attempt to put a non-elective model to referendum again, without first giving serious consideration to a direct election option, will be opposed not only by the coalition of forces which voted “No” in 1999 but by an additional cohort of DE supporters who will be pissed off about being yet again denied the chance to vote for their preferred option. The elephant is not leaving the room anytime soon.
The anti-democractic Luvvies rooted it last time, we have to shut the brutes up this time.
What are Mr Strokey and the other monarchists here going to do when Elizabeth dies, the British monarchy collapses and the position of Head of State goes by default to President Tony Blair of the Republic of England….or is hawked to the President of Scotland…or to the EU?
Even Betty herself has been dropping hints as broad as she can constitutionally make them that it is time to cut the cord. So let’s do it.
Paul: you’re quite right. But what I’d really like is the direct election crowd to actually agree on one (or even a few) model(s), flesh them out in some detail, and defend them from the critiques of the minimalist republicans.
If they are serious about actually getting a model up, rather than taking pleasure in humiliating Malcolm Turnbull (fun as that might have been), they are going to need the support of the people who voted “Yes” last time, and might try addressing their concerns.
Spiros,
So you do not mind paying this entire “piffling and irrelevant” sum yourself? In that case, put the referendum up.
Yeah. He’s my uncle, as it happens! His claim to the throne is extremely dubious but it’s good for a laugh.
I would agree with Paul that the current system ain’t broke. It works, pretty much. But it’s not about the system, it’s about the symbolism. We’re Australian, not British; we should have an Australian head of state — end of story. I say this as an historian of Britain, an anglophile, and the nephew of the rightful King of England!
Alas, Andrew, private referendums don’t count when it comes to changing the constitution.
Next you’ll be telling us, Bronwyn Bishop style, that we shouldn’t become a republic because of the cost of changing the RAAF’s stationery.
I’ve got good news on the cost in any case. What we spend on the one-off referendum will be more than made up by the saving from not paying for future royal visits. These royals don’t come cheap, what with their ladies-in-waiting, butlers, boot lickers etc all flying first class.
It is drawing a bit of a long bow to say that the republican movement “self destructed” last time out. They were presented with a model - a minimalist model that was always going to be unacceptable to a majority of those in favour of a republic, let alone enough of the Australian people to carry a referendum. As various commentators remarked at the time, it was clever politics from the master of the wedge, JWH, but in the long run he might well have done the republicans a favour, if nothing else, by ensuring that the next time we have a vote the minimalist model will not be on the agenda.
Cheers…
Leaving aside the reserve powers for the moment (because any model worth its salt for direct election would have to sort that conundrum out), I’ve never understood why an elected Australian president would be any more of a danger or have any more authority than the elected figurehead presidents of countries like Ireland or Israel. Anyone care to explain?
In which case people who would have voted minimalist will vote for the monarchy instead. What would change from 1999?
“The question then boils down to: who does ceremony better, the British firm known as “the Windsorsâ€?, specialists in pomp and circumstance for almost a millennium? Or the latest Republican exterior decorator crawl out of the woodwork?”
Nonsense.
The question, even to do you the considerable favour of accepting your premises, boils down to “Who do we want to do our ceremony? Us or someone else?”
If you can’t apprehend this basic kernel of republicanism, Jack, then you have no business giving sermons on symbolic leadership.
Any proposal that doesn’t allow for people to vote for the HoS will fail, and deserves to. Constitutional ‘questions’ meaning the constitutional propriety of laws made by Parliament will continue to be resolved by the HCA. Constitutional questions concerning the conduct of elected representatives of Parliament should be resolved by a vote of the Parliament, except for Supply, which should be always a matter of a majority vote of the Reps. If people don’t like the results of the deliberation of Parliament, they can always vote for another lot next time around.
A direct election model for HoS will require some changes to the Constitution, and needs deprive anyone except Parliament, of the role of dissolving itself, or of appointing the Prime Minister. If this task proves too difficult, for reasons of political expediency or cowardice, I will also vote ‘No’ to the establishment of a republic, since I distrust the ’symbolism’ argument for the Republic, and now believe it is a third order issue in every sense. At the risk of dismaying those who feel this is an issue worthy of a great campaign, let me say that in my view, as soon as Charles and his appalling wife ascend the throne,(assuming he outlives his mother, which is by no means assured), the gig will be up, and in true Australian style, a vote will be run by some media outlet (probably one of Murdoch’s rags), the ruling Party will ‘listen’ sympathetically, and will simply move the appropriate minimalist version through the Parliament.
End of story.
Agree with amused.
It’s done in Germany.
No idea why we need some mystical ‘reserve powers’. It’s just antiquated bullshit left over from the archaic British system.
All arguments against an elected president need to take into account the fact that they reinforce the role of the executive in actuality and are prima facie anti-democratic.
The Republic or not Debate in old parliament house,was the most unrepresentative swill that has ever been adopted as a serious occasion in Australia.And some of the behaviour was appalling.Since then as momentum has it,this country has swung further to the Right.What a lot of nonsense is going on here,Paul maybe exercising his mind,but there is an inflexibility here not really that of the individuals who can use computers effectively without much guilt at times,as if their opinion actually meet a standard representing a value for readers outside the participators.And that is and remains like the mentioned gathering.So apparently,to the casual observer there is only essentially two ways to have a legally possible President.One fully elected or be change by name and the present system of finding a GG,then has a name change.Both are dopey in the extreme because of the problem of practical experience under the new powers they may find themselves with.The ancient art of apprenticeships has been forgotten,as have the potential of voting in a real poll that has limited enforceability,but may have a certitude of direction someone has to adhere to as compelling.I do not like the submissions to government process,because effectively to write a worthy submission cost money,but that may not be the case if a instrument of government assisted effectively organising like minded submissions as different consenters to a general approach.The reason I am mentioning submissions is because in some way they represent a working process that has a direct non government peoples and entities input to particular questions of the procedures ,processes and enablings by government.A Peoples President as process,if you will.I think it is therefore necessary that apprenticeship be served,and to do this, might also, as a pre arrangement to apprenticeship find a way in law,that, is workable and has safegaurds to enable the submission process to become a referenda process,that then has legal consequence given to it by the Symbolic Head who is now the GG.Having the quality of mind to be a responsible President seems an awesome task to frightening to allow anyone to have.But,life isnt the non-moving static process of legislated law,and adhering to previous suchness is anybodys right now to feel and think it is old hat,say, because of working computers,and even the transcribing of disadvantaged thought,by the well motivated via computers.Australia has been a stable democracy for a very long time,and not because eloquence found its way into the parliamentary upkeep,but, because,even the parliamentarians,are at heart sometimes republicans,who find their own power not always useful,and the sullening antagonism of the public may be a worthy safety valve they readily accept.Keeping the Republican debate open is a sort of osmosis process, and rather than claim there are only two distinct ways of going about it,lets try the third.Because a Republic that has defined all of its processes and being is one that may well become a legal entity,and we will as citizens,and I am confident about that, turn us off in droves.The American Republic is no longer,the qualitative processes are now almost tasered out of existence. Be alive ,us humans are not the dead letters of law and symbols of laws.
FDB Jan 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
You mean “a mate as a head of state”? [smirks mischievously] Sorry, even I would find it hard to rise to that level of gruesome chumminess if confronted by the nations top job holder.
It staggers me that our self-proclaimed cultural elites have such a tin-ear when it comes to political culture.
The solution to this republican “problem” is dead simple: give the Royal Family dual citizenship. We give it to every other Guido, Paddy and Nick.
That way the monarchical HoS could be just as much “we” as we are. Problem solved.
Earth to Jack:
Britons want to freaking BE us. Why the hell are you still looking up to them? Nose in the glorious books of pre-WWI golden ages, methinks.
37 Mark Jan 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The elected (Israel’s is actually indirectly elected by parliament) “figureheads” of those states already have quite a bit of authority. With authority goes power and with power goes corruption and vice. In any case s/he would be just another politician with his own axe to grind, requiring all the appurtenances of high office.
And there is always the possibility that the office could evolve toward the French and American direction ie co-habitation and imperial presidency. We could do without that, thanks all the same.
To turn the question around, no one has ever explained the benefit of having a glorified busy-body set in place atop the executive branch, issued with a once in a blue moon licence to meddle in public affairs. Anyone care to enlighten me?
I don’t agree. Reserve powers aren’t mystical. They are real, and they persist in both Ireland and in Germany.
The President of Ireland has what amounts to reserve powers:
However, with difficulty the Oireachtas can have the President impeached and removed for “misbehaviour” (whatever that is).
The Constitution of Ireland thus produces in a long-winded way what is tacit and unstated in the relationship between executive and legislature in Australia. Except in Australia the PM can rid herself of the GG with a phone call.
I guess it can be argued that the President of Ireland has a greater authority because of popular election.
Reserve powers and popularity are a potentially explosive brew.
Interestingly, however, it is the legislature that declares a national emergency and right to govern unconstitutionally (Art 28). The Irish legislature can declare the right to govern the country forever, without elections.
Similarly, the President of Germany can declare a state of emergency, which gives the cabinet the right to govern without requiring a majority in the Bundestag. It is up to the Cabinet to decide when such a state of emergency is over. This provision concentrates administrative and military control into the same hands. In effect, these are reserve powers conferred by the President on to the cabinet.
Under the Australian constitution it is up to the GG to give authority for the establishment of martial law. And there is no provision for executive tyranny in the Australian constitution.
35 Spiros Jan 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I bet youve got a real nice bridge spanning Sydney harbour for sale at a knock down price too, eh?
As if the republican president wont have its own retinue of hangers-on, camp-followers and fawning sycophants. Why else did the celebrities all flock to the republican cause? The lead up to the referendum sure flushed alot of that type out of the woodwork. [sound of gagging and retching]
I daresay the cost of a republican president with tri-annual elections will dwarf the cost of the odd Royal visit and the up-keep of Yarralumla.
I think the question posed by aorcerer (is that a typo?) [31] was a good one.
Should not the monarchists actually find out if the Windsors actually want the job? Seems impolite to assume they want to do it without asking.
After all, from Britain going into the ECM, changing immigration so we go through the long lines, and now people from the former soviet bloc now in the EU actually have easier access to jobs in the UK, don’t you think they are trying to tell us something? I sort of get the feeling that they are like elderly parents with a middle aged kid at home who resists all hints to go out and live independently.
However, for those who like the monarchy, there is plenty of precedent in the British model to take all this into account. The British Parliament did not like the idea of the previous possible Charles the Third, so got a King from a foreign country (Holland) in his place. Seems to me that under the existing framework we could get a Monarch from wherever we liked. (They also did a roaring import trade from Germany).
There are plenty of out of work ex Monnicks out there who would like a job. In addition there are plenty of regal second sons and daughters who would be up to it. Personally, if I had to have a monarch, then one of the Thai Royal Princesses would be a good bet. Any of them would do a good job, and don’t talk to the trees, and they are in our region. Or how about Hillary if she doesn’t get up in the US, or Bill (Plenty of ‘experience’ there - wink wink nudge nudge). Then there is Prince Frederick of Denmark. If Elizabeth Windsor could do two jobs, surely Prince Fred and Princess Mary could become King and Queen of Australia. We would then at least have an Australian Queen.
In short, we could use the British Monarchical model to get ourselves a top knotch head Kangaroo from a very wide field.
Why not set it up now so that when Mrs Windsor passes on, we are not left scratching our heads wondering whether or not we ought to have Charles the third.
What it all boils down to, is who you trust most in the event of some kind of ‘emergency’ (real or confected). I prefer elected representatives to do their worst, given that they have to face an election in our system every three years. In the (unlikely) event that a whole Australian Parliament refused to hold elections, in order to ensure that MPs continued to draw their remuneration forever, I have no doubt that the question would be resolved in other ways. I am completely unconvinced that the issue of ‘Republicanism’ as such in our context adds anything at all to the very real questions concerning democratic accountability that are still before us.
The social complex that the whole boiling represented in this country is gone forever, silly old Flint, Bronwyn Bishop and the private hospital heiress nothwithstanding. As for dictatorship of the Executive, I fail to understand why this is an issue. Unless members of the Executive are somehow not elected, or refuse to stand for election, or refuse to issue the necessary writs for an election to be called in the proper way and time, why on earth does it matter that the executive in our system has a lot of power?
44 FDB Jan 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I look up to the Royal Family, not all Britons. Its rather nice to have semi-mythical figures (regents, prophets) established to provide “an ideal for living”. Queen Elizabeth is certainly a lady worth emulating. And even Charles, for all his faults, has done much good.
As regards who wants to be like who, I think that you are a little bit out of touch with social developments.
AUS elites want to assimilate with UK elites in the City and surrounds. Over the past generation about half a million of our higher-fliers appear to have spent time making it in London, within a stones throw of Buckingham palace.
They have a pretty strong desire assimilate into an upper-middle class, with-it cosmopolitan British lifestyle, although they would rather die than admit it. Cant say I blame them, you could do worse than be established in London.
Whereas the UK populace want to assimilate with the AUS populace. However many of the expat Poms are the core support group of the Australian Monarchist movement. They are the Queen’s fifth column.
FDB says:
No harm in reliving past glories. If you want progress in the future it makes sense to study how progress was achieved in the past. We could learn from our ancestors.
Jack, as I said earlier, I don’t want a President. A GG with existing trappings will do fine. All we need to do is cut the ties to the British sovereign.
So, the Queen won’t appoint the GG on the PM’s advice. The PM will just appoint the GG, as happens de facto now.
This way, all the objections to the current arrangements (hereditary Pom who can’t be or marry a Catholic) are removed; we don’t have to agonise about codifying anything; we don’t have to agonise about building destabilsing power bases; and Bob’s your uncle.
If there’s a dispute about who out of the PM and GG is the boss (and remember that could happen now)then the High Court can sort it out.
Ach laddie. There is nothing low rent about the House Stewart.
Ay it es. That’s why we must take arms to reinstate the House Stewart, as in me.
>
C’mon guys. I’ve got a divine right.
>
Jack #26
I think you misread the electorate. The way I recall the polls breaking down a majority of Australians wanted a republic. They just didn’t want the model offered to ‘em ’cause they wanted to be able to directly elect the president.
>
Anecdotal evidence: I had two jobs at the time, one blue collar and the other arty-latte. The latte set were all convinced about the republic’s inevitability and endorsed the model because they took it for granted that electing a president would give whomever the power to steal the reigns of power. My blue-collar boss was all for a republic on sentimental Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi grounds but felt that the current model was just another example of the suits in Canberra pushing the rest of us around.
>
I don’t think he understood the difference between the US and Oz presidents and didn’t care. Actually he made me think. Given that we didn’t want a monarchical-style president what would it matter if the president was elected? This thinking made me ask the question: given the soundness of the current system and the still-unanswered questions about a republic should we change? Inevitably this lead me to the final question: why change?
>
I still haven’t got an answer apart from the usual national sentinmentality and Celtic resentment against the
GermansEnglish.>
I also think you’ve slightly misread the motivation of the elites. After witnessing Keating, Turnball etc wax lyrical about the Republic, I reckon it had a lot to do with posterity in the form of one’s own name and the length of the encyclopedia column that succeeded it.
>
BTW Anybody willing to advance a solid reason why we need to make the switch.
“Anybody willing to advance a solid reason why we need to make the switch.”
Because our fiver is graced by the boat race of a hereditary Pom who can’t be or can’t marry a catholic. Etc.
Cutting the ties would be mostly symbolic but would also be a sign of national maturity. As it is we’re like the 42 year old man who despite being a professional success still lives with his mother
out of convenience and because moving out would be scary.
Paul Norton has raised some interesting ideas, but the republic (even if it does appeal at some level) has got to be one of the LOWEST order issues to be spending time on. Indeed, there is no obvious reason why it should be argued about at any stage within the next 20 years. In a current political climate where MASSIVE life and death issues are FAR from being resolved in a sensible manner (for example, NATO has just announced that it will carry out preemptive nuclear strikes in order to stop other countries getting nuclear weapons, McCain wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years, Hillary wants to bomb Iran, Obama will attack Pakistan, plus the US government has destroyed the world economy, again…it just doesn’t stop!), the simple fact is that republicanism in Australia is on the same level of importance as whether the Texas legislature should fly the Confederate Flag.
Political debates carry an opportunity cost. At any given time, we only have so much attention to share around between different issues. The more we talk about worthless issues like the republic (which will bring no obvious benefits for the substantial costs required to pursue it), the more our collective attention will be diverted from dealing with existential matters, such as how to avoid Nuclear World War.
PS - I have a lot of trouble explaining the Australian political system to Vietnamese people (”Uh, Quang, the Australian Government doesn’t HAVE a General Secretary”) But that’s nothing compared to trying to understand the Byzantine intrigues of the Vietnamese system. And I’m yet to meet a single Vietnamese businessman say he’ll that have to cancel all shipments to Australia, because of the House of Windsor.
Because our fiver is graced by the boat race of a hereditary Pom who can’t be or can’t marry a catholic. Etc.
>
So what? All of these arguments are about symbolism and sentiment. On both sides! People like David Flint are massively out of touch, they get all sentimental about the monarchy and actually believe in its pomps and bollocks. I don’t.
>
However all the arguments for a republic are either about some vague maturing of a nation notion - how mature is a nation that jettisons a functioning system for a half-baked one in the name of maturing as a nation? - and certain over-emphasized caricatures of the evils of monarchy etc. Against this we have a system that has evolved a curious stability, why fuck it?
>
Don’t get me wrong I’d like to see a republic eventually but I don’t see it as being a pressing issue and the fact that no-one seems to be able to forward ONE GOOD REASON for it convinces me on my own point.
>
And what Steve said about the real issues boys and girls. It’s time for the century to get hot and nasty. They always do.
>
PS Is it just me or would David Flint look really good in an SS uniform? Him and Dick Cheney.
Strewth — the solution is simple, really. Tell the Windsors to bugger off and make me Jolly King Jethro, sovereign of Straya. The monarchists have a monarchy, and the republicans have an Aussie HoS. Bow down before me, ya b*stards.
amused, re: the dissolving of parliament.
The PM currently advises the Governor-General about the dissolving of parliament within three years of it being formed. What makes you think having a President replace the GG will necessitate a change?
My preferred solution to the issue of parliaments and Presidents dissolving the House of Reps is to move to fixed terms. Not only does this take the power to dissolve parliaments out of the hands of humans but it allows us to keep the houses synchronised.
The true minimalist position is we leave things almost as they are. Just get rid of the Queen fascist machine, plus her local franchise, the GG. Strike all references to same in the Constitution (stroke of pen) and bingo. The prime minsta runs the country as he does now but we just flush the notion of a head of state down the toilet. An effing UNELECTED head of state? Why don’t we go back to divine right of kings? For Gawd’s sakes… Why do we need an a very expensive meeter and greeter? Particularly as he or she does nothing except open kiddie hospital wards and makes speeches written for him/her by the government’s flacks anyway? Citizens! It’s a bloody con, a charade. As for pomp and spectacle etc, Strocchi, why don’t you just play dress ups in the privacy of your own home?
Can anyone tell me what would be wrong with severing the link with the British Monarchy and making the Governor General the head of state?
The present method of appointing the GG has produced a couple of complete duds and a few excellent GGs, which is a better success rate than popular elections seem to produce.
That was basically Keating’s original idea wasn’t it?
I think its highly unlikely that any referendum on a republic will succeed while Elizabeth II remains alive. Like her or loath her, she represents 60 years of consistency. grandeur and tradition that many have conflated with the monarchy itself.
Once she dies, all that power will dissipate in an instance regardless of who succeeds her. That could apply as much for the UK as Australia.
The republican movement will be best served by keeping its powder dry until she dies. If that means another 20 years of GGs then so be it.
Oh no!
I fainted clean away at the thought, and had to be brought round by one of my maidservants wielding an Empire-size bottle of smelling salts.
I hate to break it to you, but the 99 referendum failed because the Australian people did not want a Republic? Why, because they disliked all the models on offer. And they still do. Couple that with the fact the Republican movement is almost dead, while the Monarchist movement is being bouyed by a surge in support, its not going to happen. Even Rudd has seen the way things are and said that plebiscites and referenda will not occur in his first term “if at all”. Another interesting thing, support for the Monarchy in the age group 18-35 has increased from 35% to 43% and rising in the past five years.
Now answer me this. Republicans want to keep holding referenda until you get the result you want, because you believe it is necessary. If Australia were to become a Republic, would we still hold referenda every few years to give us the chance to go back? Of course not.
Now lets look at some of the arguments for a Republic:
1) Australia will not be a fully mature, independant nation until we ditch the Monarchy.
Pure BS. Canada is in exactly the same situation as us, with a majority supporting the Monarchy. This argument says more about the psychological insecurities of the previous generations than any concrete reason to become a Republic. Are you saying Canada is an immature nation? This argument is so flawed I’m astounded people can put it forward with a straight face.
2) Australia should have an Australian for Head of State.
No where in the constitution is the phrase ‘head of state’ used. WE DO NOT HAVE ONE, ergo it cannot be a foreign woman. What we have is a head of government, the PM, a soveriegn, HM QEII, and the sovereigns representative, the GG. The GG is closest thing we have to a head of state, and he is Australian.
3) Cost.
We do not pay for a cent for the Monarchy, except on official visits, which would not end if we become a Republic. We have to pay for all visits by foreign heads of state, that will not change.
4) Monarchy is outdated and obsolete in the modern age.
Lets look at some other Monarchies shall we? Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and Spain. Are these countries struggling under the yoke of an antiquated and obsolete constitution? No, they are among the most developed and advanced countries on earth. Interesting side note, in general the Monarchies of these countries enjoy overwhelming support.
You want to remove the institution of the Crown which has served Australia magnifciently since federation, to replace it with yet another nauseating popularity contest or appointed bureaucrat? The fact you cannot even see the shame in this disturbs me.
My advice to you Republicans: Grow up and stop trying to p*** off Daddy Britain because a Pom called you a colonial and look around, Australia is a modern, sophisticated country with one of the most stable political systems in the world. Stop trying to gut the constitution for no good reason other than some silly emotional hang ups.
Please - This new ALP regime, under the rule of the Governor-Generalate, was given a direct mandate to abolish unfair dismissals…I’d like them to be reminded about that at every opportunity…with Wittgenstein’s poker if necessary.
NO MORE UNFAIR TORY DISMISSALS OF ALP GOVERNMENTS EVER AGAIN EVER! NEVER AGAIN!
Thank you.
The name Republican is so 20th Century. It conjures up images of revolution, disruption and disharmony.
The whole concept needs a marketing overhaul using celebrities, movie stars and very pretty children doing something fluttery.
If any one thinks politicians will get this ov