One of the most interesting things about the Australia 2020 summit is an accentuation of a trend that was already evident - the broadening of public focus on long term issues and possible solutions, which I suspect will be one of the enduring contributions of the Rudd government. That’s also having an effect on the media - responses which are flip come to be seen as the professional cynicism they really are, and what can only be described as frenzied outpourings of indignation and higly predictable pontificating indicate only the angst suffered by the relics of the Howard era at the fact that their gatekeeping role is fast evaporating. I think what we’re seeing is the final collapse of many stereotyped stances in dichotomised public debates which were characteristic of the Howard era.
Looking at it in retrospect, a lot of the Howard era rhetoric continued to attack Paul Keating - or at least various myths and perceptions about what his government stood for. That’s evident in some aspects of the revival of the Republican debate. As Paul Norton noted here, the same old arguments have been trotted out, taken out of storage for a rerun of 1999. But, as the comments on his thread from anti-Republicans demonstrate, the same old tactics characteristic of John Howard himself - a narrow, niggling legalism, the summoning up of multiple spectres of doom allegedly flowing from even the most minimalist constitutional change, and quibbles about cost - have themselves been resurrected. I don’t think that it’s worth wasting an ounce of energy or time in rebutting all these phantom charges. Their employment as rhetorical weapons is itself designed as a trap - to narrow and shift the debate onto a field of the anti-Republicans’ choosing. Classic Howard.
I can’t help but think a lot of the angst that Monarchists come out with is reflective of the opposition to Keating - an anger among the gentleman’s club set that heroes such as Churchill should be maligned, and a narrow and exclusively Anglo nationalism. After all, like it or not, the Monarchy and the institution of the Governor-General are all about symbolism. What’s interesting about the 2020 Republican debate is that it takes the desirability of an inclusive nationalism for granted, and focuses on the mechanisms. It’s not, after all, an issue that should naturally divide left and right - the potential is there for a broad range of support across political ideologies. The Monarchists’ anguished attacks are proxies for the Howardian obsession with Keating’s alleged elitism and should be seen as such. I strongly suspect that the country - and the field of debate - have moved on, and I think that anti-Republicans will find, like John Howard, that the tactics of negativity no longer work. They really should come out with their real grounds of opposition if they want to have a genuine debate, rather than hiding behind quibbles and fear mongering.
Of course, Republicans also have to get smarter in conducting the debate. Hopefully the 2020 summit is something of a step in that direction.
Elsewhere: John Quiggin on those men of the people, Dolly Downer and David Flint.
Mark, I think your title alludes to the reason why you’ll never lever the libertarian leaning from the social conservatives and monarchists: they’re both straighteners of slightly different stripe (although both seek to brand their version of straightening as morality).
On the other hand, they also both see the republicanism as an evil, levelling plot. After all, if you’re going to aspire to a society of betters (where better == richer or better == morally upright) somebody has to be at the top. This is a position the monarchy fills for both - they’re rich and they’re in the constitution, so tug yer forelock, you oik.
That’s probably right, David. But I think genuine conservatives in Australia are a rare species. The failure of the referendum in 99 was really a result of a scare campaign designed to convince “the battlers” that the Republic was a plot by elitist nobs (and Turnbull and other elitist nobs and the model gave it all the ammunition it needed) and thus anti-egalitarian.. I’m not at all sure that there are actually that many Australians who think like David Flint.
I heard Alexander Downer on OPM this afternoon railing against the Republic - I hev to admit he sounded even more shrill, desperate and irrelevant than he did at any time during his tenure as Foreign Minister - and thats saying something.
Immediately after that I heard President of the ARM Mick Keating speaking about the plan for the 2 staged model of a Plebiscite about the desirability of a Republic at the next election, followed by a Referendum on the model at the election after. He acutely observed that the reason that the Monarchists are so up in arms this time is that this approach is very likely to actually succeed. He noted that they are absolutely terrified.
Have I missed something here?
Is there a consensus draft for the non-mimimalist republic? What is it? Where is it?
It’s all very well to vote YES in a plebiscite. I shall vote YES myself.
But before I vote YES in a referendum I want to know what I am voting for.
Show me the person who is willing to vote YES to any republican model simply because it’s republican and I’ll show you a fool.
That’s the task ahead over the next two years, I’d suggest, Katz - articulating such a model. I thought the significance of the summit was that we’d moved beyond debating the desirability of a Republic, and reliving 99 and the Keating era, and were rolling up our sleeves and getting down to work. Or sitting on the floor, or holding bits of paper over our heads, as seems most appropriate in due season.
Quiggin on Downer:
[link]
The other thing about the summit was the acceptance that politics is a normal human activity and that political issues can and should be resolved by people discussing, taking positions and voting. That’s essentially a republican way of doing things. Monarchists believe that it’s possible to have a) a figure above politics, and b) that person embody Australians’ better view of themselves.
I’d suggest that a) is a religious yearning misplaced. Picture the Queen, or the incumbent Governor General or the next one, graciously shaking hands with someone - now imagine parliamentarians at Question Time carrying on like chimpanzees. With those images in mind, you can see why Flint was so successful at skewering “the politicians’ republic”.
As for b) there was a brief shining moment in 1954 when the young Queen walked among us and served this role, but that time has passed. Even though David Flint has enough belief for all of us it will make this falsehood true.
Good points, Andrew.
Andrew E wrote:
It also suggests an easy answer to a republic. Replace the queen in the constitution with some two-up coins. Nobody dislikes two-up, that’s categorically un-Australian.
That way, any disputes that push constitutional boundaries and require reserve power intervention can be resolved by forming a yes-or-no answer to be asked of the two-up coins, kind of like a magic eight ball. Heads means the government wins, tails means the opposition wins. Odds means they must try again to resolve differences. Want to block supply and force an early election? Go get the two-up kip and do it on the tables in the middle of parliament, with the whole crowd of politicians jeering and throwing money to the speaker who can take side bets on the outcome.
The public love of ceremony can be lavished on an elaborate kip made from a Lee Enfield 303 stock and bits of Don Bradmans last piece of willow. Coins are traditional penny sized but made of WA gold, stamped with the 2 best prime ministers (say Chifley and Menzies for balance) with a wombat and a razorback representing tails and the never ending dichotomy of native and introduced species and government. I humbly suggest Chifley be paired with the wombat.
Henceforth - no need for a president or presidential elections, incredibly patriotic, unique and distinctly Australian, and with a capricious decision making ability based on chance just like a monarchy. Come in spinner!
Dolly is magnificent. His lips quivered and cheeks wobbled as he twice gamely enunciated (post luncheon) the surprisingly difficult tonuge-twister (apparently) “Keating loving elites.”
Dolly hasn’t left the luncheon table since about July 2007.
Tool.
My ex-mother-out-law, who lived next door to the Menzies in Malvern, summed up the hard core Anglo-nationalist view of PJK: “that rotten little Irishman” she’d spit in rounded vowels.
Looking at Downer’s audience on the teev tonight, the old dears are not long for their antipodean homes. Our bunyip aristocracy and assorted loyal subjects, with their mother country dreaming, are dying at a rate of knots. The odd idiot son isn’t gunna be nearly enough.
Monarchists are probably a minority in the Liberal Party these days. I mean really!
Dolly does Dining!
Andrew E, 2nd para, line 3: “parliamentarians at Question Time carrying on like chimpanzees”
You are being most unfair to our cousins the chimps. (BTW I haven’t noticed anyone in the visitor’s seating throwing bananas or peanuts down to the Members. Should they?)
Ditto those who render GWB as The Chimp. Have some respect for arboreal near-relatives.
Trouble is, there are still sufficient grovellers, forelock-tuggers, nostalgics, anti-elitist-conspiracy-theorist “battlers”, and anti-Irish bigots out there to sink a referendum on the republic.
Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania are their natural homes. Only two of those states need to vote NO and the whole thing goes to the bottom faster than the Lusitania.
This requires very careful handling. If a republic does happen to get up, it is likely to be a very odd fish indeed. Such is the genius of democracy.
An interesting fact: here in Victoria at the 1999 referendum the electorate of Menzies voted YES, the electorate of Lalor voted NO.
Go figure.
What a load of sententious, pompous, self-deluding rot.
Kevin Rudd is himself the Pope of Puff, the absolute King of Spin, a four-second sound bight on legs looking for a picture opportunity.
The waffle, a re-hash of straight Labor policy mostly, that came gushing out of the 20.20 Summit, for the greater part, was no more “forward looking” than making it to that evening’s network news bulletin sound-bights.
And to simply roll together as “bunyip aristocracy and assorted loyal subjects” all those who are expressing well-founded concerns about the complacent shell-game that is being passed off as “debate” about our future as a nation is an attempt at sweeping under the carpet a host of more than reasonable qualms and reservations about the long-term impacts of over-turning our Constitution in favour of some sketchy “model” of a republic, whether minimalist or maximalist (nobody’s sure).
Rather than trying to besmirch the skeptics as a class, skeptics who amount to at least 40 per cent of the population I should remind everyone and probably more if the previous Referendum was any guide, here’s the real challenge for the Republicans: Try telling us why we should change the constitution at all.
Because unless you can, you’re going to fail again.
And the reason why the King of Puff backs away from a timetable for a republic, every time he is asked about it, is because he knows it will fail until his Public Relations unit can dredge up some better reason than creating a cosy sinecure for former Labor Prime Ministers and A-list celebrity appointees.
You know? So that when President Martin Ferguson or President Kieran Perkins or President Missy Higgins is rolled out into public view, the guffaws aren’t too loud!
I thought Dolly’s hissy fit was about a lot more than terror about a coming republic. (I think we should vote yes to have a referendum, but as to adopting a republic - I want to see both the putative President’s powers and the powers of pollies well and truly knackered before I vote yes for a republic. And I want to see a bill of rights preserving all our freedoms as well, otherwise, I’ll vote no in the referendum.) Phew! I’ve got that off my chest.The half-pom side of me has won on this one, but the bloody Irishman is still lurking inside me waiting to spring out.
Now for Downer’s terror. Its much more than a looming republic - its that Rudd has a popular mandate to undo the rancidness of the Howard years - even greater than he got at the election - as a result of the 20/20 Summit. How long it will take him - a friend of mine o/s predicts years the damage is so grave - and how far he’;ll go, its toon soon to say. But the undoing has begun.
Sir “Trolly” Eliot Ramsey ,apart from vacuous sarcasm what do you have to offer ? That somebody elected as President is a worse choice than an accident of hereditary ? The reason for a change to an elected head of state is so obvious that it is only the determined dullard that can’t see it and who generally appeal to some notion of political stability. A democracy should not have as its head a person selected by non democratic process. Now the debate should be about
1. the powers and function of the head of state
2, the processes by which that person is elected.
Bill O’Slatter says:
Apart from childishly name-calling your critics, do you mean? Well, how’s this for a suggestion: Instead of blathering on about “Presidents”, why don’t you just reform the office of Governor General?
Instead of the Governor General being the Vice Regent, the Governor General becomes our Head of State. You put that to a referendum.
That way you completely by-pass the whole issue of whether to appoint or elect a “President”, because the public already understands that you appoint “Governors General”.
You don’t need the laughable shell-game, that way. The question simply becomes something like this: “Should the Governor General of Australia act as Head of State of Australia instead of being the representative of the Queen of England in Australia?”
And you tell people what a Head of State does in a community education campaign before the vote.
That way, nobody will laugh at a “President of Australia”, nor expect to vote for one.
The day-to-day role of the Governor General remains the same, and the debate centeres instead on limiting his or her Reserve Powers.
This means, of course, Les Patterson or Marn Fersn or John Kerr or other stirling example of Labor revolutionary class consciousness (or Alexander Downer) won’t get to be “President of Australia”, but at least as a nation we won’t be an object of international ridicule or pity like, say, Zimbabwe.
Because if you think I’m sarcastic, wait till you have Kim Beazley or someone like that waddling on to the international stage before the world’s media as “President of Australia”. Then you’ll get sarcastic
Really, if Teh Republic stopped calling its critics “trolly”, and just got on the trolly instead, you’d have a better chance.
I wouldn’t call them phantom charges. As a convert to Monarchism (from “this-is-a-waste-of-money-ism”), I am still yet to hear a convincing argument as to what is wrong.
The only amendment I would support would be the removal of any mention of the Queen in the Constitution, leaving everything else alone. And that is one that won’t pass, because people want to elect their own President/GG. If we have a directly elected head of state, then we need to codify their powers, and she ate the spider to catch the fly, perhaps she’ll die.
Don’t count on Australia becoming a republic any time soon - the hurdles are too steep, the process too (deliberately) difficult, and the case for change too flimsy.
Trouble with this, ET, is that the GG has some pretty nasty reserve powers including disallowing legislastion passed by the Parliament that would have to be removed if we went to that model.
What is wrong, Howard, is that the symbolism of the Queen is outdated - it ties us in with an older model of nationalism where we were part of the Empire rather than an independent state and it discourages the republican virtues of public reason and debate Andrew E pointed to in favour of deference to our betters. The fact that Eliot and his epigones constantly come up with risible names for the President of Australia illustrates all this - a fundamental distrust of the Australian people to elect someone elites deem worthy. As far as I’m aware, no one rolls around laughing at the President of Ireland. We should be no different.
Paul Burns says:
Oh. My. God. Do you think the 20.20 Summit could or did confer a ‘mandate’? So now the 20.20 Summit has become the sovreign power of Australia!! It actually usurps the people!!
let’s get something right. The 20.20 Summit has no sovreign authority. It was a public relations stunt.
The 20.20 Summit
The 2020 summit had a political effect, Eliot. It shifted the goalposts on what is perceived as mainstream a very long way from where they were in the Howard era - the inclusion of economists, captains of industry, Lachlan Murdochs, etc. demonstrated that many of the issues Rudd ran on are very far from being the province of the left but actually represent a potentially broad consensus.
StrongHoward C says:
It’s amazing that that has to be continually spelled out to people. That you have to indicates that they the “republicans” are not in the least concerned about the practical implications of the radical step they’re proposing, but rather that they’re merely infatuated with the idea of “gesture” and “symbol”.
Mark says:
See?
What would encourage the “virtues of public reason and debate” would be if:
• republicans could show us how a republican constitution would better serve this country’s democracy than the Westminster model
• show us a republican constitution, for that matter, before asking everyone to accept it, notwithstanding the mandate conferred on Keving Rudd at the 20.20 edition of The Oprah Winfrey show, or whatever that was last weekend.
Like the 20/20 Summit didn’t command Rudd do something with their suggestions? Oh, well.
Eliot Ramsey wrote:
Apparently there are none so blind who will not see, Eliot. There are plenty of examples of why the monarchy is a really, really bad idea. Mad King George just for starters.
What you’re telling us, Eliot, is that at the centre of your preferred constitutional arrangements, you’d like a random actor. To satisfy people like you, my proposal above to replace the queen with two-up coins should be more than adequate.
Paul Burns says:
It doesn’t have that power. The 20.20 Summit is not featured in the Australian Constitution, Paul. It cannot confer a “mandate”. It was a discussion group, an invitation-only meeting, it did not comprise elected delegates or representatives, it did not replace Parliament.
The Prime Minister himself can just ignore it if he wishes (and he probably will if the truth be known). He didn’t delegate or cede his authority to the bloody 20.20 Summit, and couldn’t do so under our constitution.
Your suggestion that the 20.20 Summit conferred a “mandate” to usher in Teh Republic or anything else turns it into a revolutionary constitutional convention, in effect.
You might be just getting a little ahead of yourself, there. The Millennium is a way off, yet.
On top of that, the whole theory of “mandate” is very old fashioned, because quite often governments have to make decisions that couldn’t possibly have been mandated by an electorate because they address issues that arose after the election which formed the government. (For example, when the US electorate voted FDR into office, they didn’t “mandate” him to declare war on Japan.)
Get it into your head – the 20.20 stunt was a Public Relations Exercise. Nothing else.
David Rubie says:
No, David. I’d like a constitutionally defined actor. As in our existing Constitution. And what do you think are the constitutionally defined powers of Teh President in the proposed Republic? There are none, are there?
Why do you think that is?
And, Eliot, about mandates. Howard didn’t have one for Workchoices. Iemma doesn’t have one for privatising electricity in NSW. Not even from his own party. I doubt Rudd well ever be as stupid politically as either of them were or are.On any level.
Dave, you’re being a bit hard on old George III. Its a complex historical debate which would send me scurrying to my bookshelf and looking through several tomes to justify, so I’ll leave it for now. But he wasn’t that bad after all, and most of it was the fault of his advisers and a very port-sodden Parliament.Besides, losing America wasn’t such a bad thing for the rest of us, as the Brits learnt from their mistakes. Except the rest of the world is now stuck with the Yanks and their flawed conceptions of republicanism, democracy (read plutocracy) and their obsession with ‘blood and treasure’, a phrase taken from the Revolutionary lexicon.
As for republican virtue, etc,, the reality of that was dying out before the Revolutionary leaders were dead.
Oh, don’t start me. I’m really baaaad when I get going on this.
It’s odd that you think the summit was a political stunt, Eliot, but you don’t believe it will have any political effect. Rudd obviously wanted it to broaden the basis of support for his agenda. It’s probably going to work. Sorry you don’t like that, but it’s a fact.
Though a republican, I sometimes I wonder if it’s the rather ‘Clayton’s’ nature of our present so-called monarchy that Australians like (for anyone too young to remember, Claytons was a non-alcoholic beverage advertised some years ago as ‘the drink you have when you’re not having a drink’). I’ve often thought that the monarchy you have when you’re not having a monarchy is what we have, and it’s the sheer lack of passion, the lack of political intensity that many people are comfortable with. Therefore, perhaps a republic for many Australians, would be more acceptable if it had a similar quality - nothing too intoxicating. I could be wrong…
Mark says:
Did you vote for them?
Parliament represent the “broad consensus” of the Electorate. The suggestion that the 20.20 Summit has usurped Parliament, that it is a “representative” assembly that confers “mandated” powers is just utter balderdash.
I have to say, that people can get on a blog like Larvatus Prodeo and state such things beggars belief and is a sad, sad reflection on the level of debate around the republic in particular but politics generally. If it’s in any way indicative, then Teh Republic doesn’t stand a bat’s chance…
I’m not making that suggestion, Eliot. I’m referring to the fact that political events have political effects. The summit was one and it will have one. Are you so naive that you think that Rudd held it just for the ideas? It’s clear as daylight that it was intended to harness popular support for an agenda that goes beyond the me-tooism from the election campaign.
[link]
While I’d probably disagree with ER on the desirability of a republic, I think he is being slightly misrepresented in this stoushlette.
I think the ER finds it almost impossible to imagine a safer model of government than our present arrangement.
On the other hand, I am extremely cautious about as yet untested claims about the safety of various republican models.
Indeed, it is true that a latterday Mad King George could make constitutional government in Australia very difficult. Equally, our own home-grown Richard Nixon could also be troublesome.
On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that out present vice-regal arrangements cripple Australia’s ceremonial and symbolic presence in the world. These arrangements may also encourage Australians to fail to take Australia seriously as a full-fledged sovereign nation.
ER’s detractors, however, seem over-eager to remedy the latter at the expense of minimising the dangers entailed in the former.
Let us, therefore, debate the relative merits of different constitutional arrangements in sparing us the troubles of tyranny while amplifying a positive sense of national sovereignty and national identity.
I’d agree Katz, but it’s there that the Downers of this world, imho, really don’t want to go.
No doubt about that Mark.
Downer is behaving quite rationally in accordance with his interests. He knows that the Liberal Party view of the world is bolstered by the sense of deference and hierarchy underpinned by the institution of the monarchy.
He is therefore politicking quite effectively when he attempts to marginalise republican sympathies as artefacts of Irishism, elitism, or any other bogey he can conjure up.
My thesis is that not only is it rational politics for Downer to do this, it is also effective politics.
Downer’s opponents would be better employed than in slagging off at him and his supporters. At the moment he may be losing the battle of ideas, but he is winning the forthcoming campaign for an effective NO vote.
Mark writes:
When what is wrong is symbolism, then there is little wrong. I think there are more important things in the world than symbolism. Kevin Rudd, I’m not so sure about.
To think that Australians need an “Australian Head of State” to feel Australian is insulting. Anyway, we have an Australian Head of State - it’s the Governor-General.
Australians know they live in an independent country. They know England couldn’t tell us where to go to the toilet.
I, for one, am for the Government spending money on things more important than symbolism.
Eliot Ramsey wrote:
This shows a fundamental mis-understanding of our constitution. Once you understand just how many of the reserve powers are based on convention, the idea of a mad monarch becomes quite frightening. If you want a constitutionally defined actor as opposed to a random actor, you’re going to have to write down a lot more rules in the constitution. A lot more. That’s far more change than the switch to a republic.
Mark says:
I’m referring to the fact that political events have political effects. The summit was one and it will have one. Are you so naive that you think that Rudd held it just for the ideas?
Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I too believe 20.20 was an empty public relations stunt. And have said so.
Mark says:
Did you see my remarks at 18 about reforming the office of Governor General? If you want to address the matter of the Vice Regent’s reserve powers, then do that. But don’t pretend you need a Bunyip President to do so. If you want to spell out the Governor General’s reserve powers, or ammend them by referendum, then do that. But don’t expect President Frank Sartor or whoever to be any better.
In the meantime, what are the republicans’ proposals for dealing with a Mad President? Oh, that’s right. We don’t have a Republican constitution, and nobody can show us what one would look lie.
In fact, why do we need one at all?
Eliot Ramsey wrote:
Er, kick them out every five years? Awfully hard to do with a foreign monarch unless you have a stomach for international violence.
Eliot, I’m not the author of the second quotation you attribute to me. As I said in the post, I’m very far from being interested in debating a range of absurd scenarios and patronising putdowns which are the stock in trade of monarchist rhetorical tactics - all of which you’re pulling from your tried and true bag of tricks on this thread to no one’s great surprise.
And before you assume I’ve agreed with you about the 2020 summit, I’d suggest you read what I actually said. I’ll provide the link again in case you missed it.
[link]
David Rubie says:
Er, we already do that with Governors General.
But then, we have no idea what would happen under Teh Republic, because there’s no model of the republic - apart from other Commonwealth Countries with Presidents, such as Pakistan and Zimbabwe and Kenya and the like.
Mark says:
Okay then, tell us instead, in your own words, What practical benefits would ensue from Australia having a “President”? And what would the “President’s” powers be?
They’re very simple questions, aren’t they? Odd how nobody can answer them.
I answered the first question in the post - there is a practical benefit to an inclusive nationalism and an end to celebrating elites and I’ve previously said that codifying the reserve powers is not the exercise in complexity it’s made out to be - George Williams proposed an easy way to do it. Keating dropped the ball for political reasons. The president doesn’t really need any powers at all. As in Germany, parliament could vote on installing and removing the head of government, and disputes between the two houses could be resolved politically. If you really need a “reserve power”, then let it be justiciable by the High Court. We can do without “advise and warn”.
You really aren’t paying attention are you “Trolly”. Katz outlined the reasons for a Republic and I agree with his concerns about the model of the Republic with this caveat : there are no trouble free models of any political system. At some stage or other there will be conflict between each of the distinct parts. The question is how to minimize these conflicts.
Mark says:
I don’t see how celebrating a new elite, the “President of Australia” and his or her hangers on, is of practical benefit. Nor how it is any different, practically speaking, from celebrating our existing elites?
And as if Australia doesn’t already have an “inclusive nationalism”? Have you been to an ANZAC Day service lately? Or an Australia Day citizenship ceremony?
And if codifying the Reserve Powers of the Head of State is not an “exercise in complexity”, as you say, why do we need worry about a mad king scenario (that stock in trade of republican rhetorical tactics - all of which you’re pulling from your tried and true bag of tricks on this thread to no one’s great surprise?
Reform the Governor General’s role. Go for it. Nobody’s going to object - except republicans, oddly enough.
You just saw the Australian people, in an overwhelming election outcome, dismiss a conservative administration in favour of an alternative political option, in an exercise of democracy that would be the envy of any nation on earth.
And you want to get rid of that? For what? You cannot even say.
Huh? Are you now implying that we wouldn’t have elections anymore under a republic? Wtf?
This really is tedious - I’m not putting forward any “mad king” scenario. Just because you apparently subscribe to groupthink by adopting every single monarchist argument holus bolus doesn’t mean the contrary is true.
And I don’t think that it’s necessary or desirable that we should kowtow to a President as an “elite” - quite the contrary in fact - a democratic process of selection is far less likely to foster that than an anachronistic mode of appointment from high.
And I’ve already made the point about the narrow symbolism and sense of national identity fostered by the existing arrangements.
I obviously erred in bothering to respond to your stock in trade talking points against my own better judgement expressed in the post.
Eliot, I brought up the mad king scenario, not Mark. Your example of why Australian democracy works (getting rid of the previous government), far from proving that a monarchy is a good idea, actually proves that Australians are more than ready to ditch it, given that we have political and economic stability (probably more important than anything). You basically ignored every reason why the monarchy is a bad idea but still insist that nobody brought up any good reasons why. My suggestion is that you read the thread again, we’re all a bit tired of “talking to the hand” mon frere.
Dear me, what enjoyable silliness.
I have often thought that the term ‘monarchist’ is in many ways misleading. I think of myself as much as a ‘constitutionalist’ as a ‘monarchist’. The key issue for me is that our current constitution has given us a century of political stability, something that is the envy of the world. The Monarch’s very remoteness ensures political independence, the governor general has all the reserve and ceremonial power, but has no mandate as he receives no votes.
All this talk of the ‘inevitable/coming republic’ ignores several important facts:
Firstly, the minimalist model has already been put to the vote and failed.
Secondly, the direct election model is hard to sell due to the expense of national presidential campaigns and the model has lost quite a bit of credibility after the recent electoral fiascos (vote rigging is never a good sign) in the United States.
Thirdly, political support for a direct election model will disappear as the politicians do not want it, because a president is an alternate power structure that could be used to oppose them, afterall, a president will have a far, far greater mandate (more votes) than the Prime Minister or possibly the entire government.
Fourth, the republicans are still trying to decide what kind of a republic they would like; then comes the tough issue of choosing a particular model from each ’stream’. The variations of direct election models are literally infinite.
Fifth, and most importantly, there is little public support for a republic going by the latest scientific polls (45%, as low as 33% in some states). This support is for ‘a republic’ by the way, people are even more divided over the model.
Personally I do not object to the complacent detachment from reality most republicans seem to enjoy. The failure to come to terms with their previous defeat, blaming it on Howard’s tricks (it was the republicans who asked for the words ‘president’ and ‘republic’ to be removed from the question, not Howard) has shielded them from any necessity to learn from their mistakes.
I particularly love the fact that stage one of the plan to a republic involves cutting remaining governmental ties with Great Britain. Such a brave and monumental plan, pity it happened in 1986 (with the Queens direct involvement and support, incidentally). Of course, now that this has been pointed out to them, the republicans claim they meant removing the Queen from the constitution. Given that that was part of stage two, they are somewhat lacking in credibility. To have the republicans show such basic ignorance of the constitution is a great boon, as is excluding monarchists from the summit. Is that the kind of republic these people intend to institute?
The Governor General holds the reserve powers in the sovereign’s name. In the hypothetical circumstance that we had a mad monarch, and in the event that they were not removed from the line of succession or gently forced to abdicate ‘for the good of their health’ the GG could simply refuse to do anything mad in the sovereign’s name.
On the other hand, there is no one above or below the president who can cushion the impact. Given a power hungry or mad president, there is nothing to stop him wreaking havoc. After all, more people voted for him than voted for the PM, a powerful mandate indeed.
It is interesting to note that my generation (18-25) has seen an increase in support for the monarchy and a drop in support for a republic, going by the latest newspoll results. My theory? We lack the grinding post-colonial inferiority complex and the entrenched desire to annoy Mummy Britannia so common in baby boomers.
Mark says:
Well, who knows? You cannot tell us what a republican constitution would look like, can you? You want us to simply agree to it in advance. the you’ll tell us the ‘big plan’.
Would we elect a President, for example? If so, what powers would that confer on the President? Could be anything - but you don’t know.
Will the President be able to prorogue Parliament? Veto legislation? Initiate bills? If not, why would we bother electing him or her? Can he or she be impeached and dismissed?
We have no idea? Just you and other republicans pointing to Ireland and Germany and Finland and even Slovenia I heard somehwere.
Well, I’m pointing to Canada and New Zealand and the United Kingdom and Australia as my examples.
If the role of President is merely ceremonial, why not just keep the Governor General? Why not just define his or her powers - it being no matter of complexity?
Mark says:
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be awkward. But as Teh Republic gets closer, people are going to ask these questions. It won’t be like chatting with your mates down at the pub about your grand ideas.
They’ll want to know what it is they’re giving up our democracy for?
Lord Daniel, I don’t know about baby boomers, dude, I’m Gen X myself.
I’d suggest that Newspoll probably reflects nothing much more than the fact the case hasn’t been put for a long time. 18 year olds would have been 9 at the time of the last referendum. Any claim about Gen Y as young fogies tends to run ashore on the rock of the very marked vote against Howard in the youngest demographic last year.
Gosh, poor Brits. They have no one above the Queen. If only that Catholic clause wasn’t there, maybe the Pope could be ultimate suzerain? Or perhaps we should bring back the Holy Roman Empire? The reason why I’m not putting forward a “mad monarch” scenario is that it’s just as irrelevant as all the ludicrous scenarios of doom argued by the anti-Republicans.
What the issue can and will be boiled down to in the event this new republic debate is not soon forgotten, is that republicans are asking the Australian people to pay a lot of money, for more politicians, more elections, and thus, more politics. Good luck with that.
Bill O’Slatter says:
Certainly that is one devastating shortcoming with the republican standpoint - defining the separation of powers and the limits to them, working out some set of checks and balances under their proposed model (whatever that might be).
Until they’ve worked that out, you’d be a fool to let them overthrow our existing Constitition.
Do you see the republicans coming up with a model of Teh Republic some time soon? Like, maybe one day in the future sometime?
Shall we summarise the monarchists objections:
(a) It’ll cost money.
(b) Presidents and PM’s will have rival power bases.
(c) I’m afraid.
Not much of a list is it? (a) so what - amalgamate a few local councils to fix that. (b) Utter garbage, since nobody has decided on popular election for the president yet anyway and (c) man up, grow up, face the world, quit hiding in your mums skirt.
All fixed now?
Eliot, in a vernacular republic all citizens are “head of state” and they have the power to set the Constitution, and the division in David’s (b) above is already clear. I tell ya, when you’re serious about a republic you’ll go the vernacular.
Apologies for any spelling and grammatical errors, it is quarter to one in the morning.
I voted against Howard, on account of his being an incompetent, radical fool masquerading as a conservative (one of the tenets of conervatism is responsible spending for Gods sake). The Crown is apolitical, it is not a Liberal party apendage. There were some internal Labor polls which showed a lack of support for a republic amongst the average party members and voters, so I’m not alone.
“The reason why I’m not putting forward a “mad monarch” scenario is that it’s just as irrelevant as all the ludicrous scenarios of doom argued by the anti-Republicans.”
Naturally, mad presidents and failed republics are so rare in this day and age.
To respond to Mr Rubie:
1) I have always admired Republicans willingness to spend potentially billions of other peoples money on their own little ideological fancies. The cost of switching to a republic is measured in the billions, according to the senate inquiry into the republic in 2005. A national presidential election campaign is estimated to cost 100 million dollars per candidate. Of course, the cost can be reduced if the candidate has to fund his own campaign, then you get a lovely system like that of the United States, where only the rich can become president (Turnbull for president)
2) The minimalist GG model was put in ‘99 and failed. Assuming the republicans ever manage to get thier act together (ha) they will most likely go for the direct election model. Given that conflict between parliament and the president is exactly what has happened in Pakistan recently (a similar commonwealth style constitution, sans Crown) I find the argument that the possibility of conflict is ‘utter garbage’ here glib and irresponsible. Power hungry people exist in every society (Turnbull for president).
3) Looking at how many failed republics and the damage political instability can do to a society you are damn right I’m afraid. The fact republicans can think of gutting the very fabric of the state shows marked complacency and arrogance. We have enjoyed 107 years of political stability because of our constitution, a record most republics wish they had.
Incidentally, ever since 1993 every government inquiry or convention into the republic question has been stacked against the monarchists, often completely excluding them, and these are the people we are supposed to trust to restructure the fabric of our country and the document which defines how our state functions? God help us.
Anyone else note the irony of a summit for new ideas producing the same old republican excrement? Most amusing. And that Hartigan chap could say with a straight face that the monarchists had no right to be there because they had no new ideas. What a showman.
Perhaps you should have slept on it instead.
And the Nepalese royal family is hardly mad at all (at least those individuals who escaped their little family tiff).
Might it just possibly be that institutions reflect the culture that sustains them?
Please, Your Ersatz Lordship, don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by revealing your own lack of wisdom.
David Rubie says:
That’s because you’re in denial, David. There are very substantial objections to the push for Teh Republic, not least being the republicans won’t (or possibly cannot) say:
• what practical benefits would arise out of having a republic
• why we should accept it without seeing a model first
• why we should abandon the Westminster system which has made countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand amongst the most effective and stable democracies in the world?
As Bill O’Slatter has pointed out about the separation of powers between parliament and Teh President, too:
I’ll say, since the republicans themselves obviously don’t have a clue.
Instead, they are reduced as ever to trivialising and abusing skeptics - the surest sign of impending defeat, again. Wouldn’t you say?
Katz says:
That’s a very good point, of course. take the cultures of other Commonwealth dominions, Canada for example, and reflect for a moment on the political institutions its culture sustains?
The suggestion that Canada is not independent as a nation, or has nothing about which to be proud because it has a Westminster system of parliament and therefore would be better off if it was more like Slovenia or Ireland is a bizarre suggestion.
But that’s exactly the line being peddled regards Australia by the republicans. Just another example of cringe, clearly.
“And the Nepalese royal family is hardly mad at all (at least those individuals who escaped their little family tiff).”
Nepal is pretty much the exception these days. In fact some of the most admirable social democracies around - Norway, Spain, UK, Canada, NZ, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands - are constitutional monarchies. Presumably all shining examples of institutions reflecting the culture that sustains them.
In our case the issue comes down to the fact that we don’t have an Australian head of state. Regardless of how well the constitutional arrangements have worked, the fact remains that they currently require another country’s head of state to preside over them and I suspect there will be little appetite for continuing that arrangement when the current reign ends. Becoming a republic is simply the most logical response to time and events.
Despite the referendum, I doubt that many Australians are fervent monarchists. A combination of the current Queen’s longevity and the stability inherent in that, together with a deep suspicion about the political motivation for change (fanned with some vigour by J Howard), and the general sense that it’s not a high priority issue, worked against change in 99.
Those circumstances would frame very dfferently given the prospect of King Charles III - which is presumably why monarchists never mention him and remain so resolutely focussed on “the current arrangements.”
Put simply, the monarchy has no future.
The energy expended on pointless debate about monarchy vs. republic would be better spent in developing the transitional arrangements to the Republic.
“The energy expended on pointless debate about monarchy vs. republic would be better spent in developing the transitional arrangements to the Republic.”
Very well put Geoff. From now on I will treat such diversions like an argument with an AGW denier - fun for a bit if I’ve got the time to kill sharpening my claws, but ultimately pointless and demeaning.
Ok, Mark had a crack at it. We need an inclusive nationalism and an end to celebrating elites.
Seriously, this is the problem with most of the left wing, perfectly demonstrated in Canberra this week: they have no idea what an average Australian thinks or looks like. Most Australians feel an inclusive nationalism on days like Friday, or when the Olympics take place. And they certainly do not celebrate elites.
This is the crux of the matter for me. The general public do not clamour for this issue to be dealt with, because it doesn’t affect them. They would rather the government attention and appropriations be devoted to other matters. They’re not sitting around the dining table (or more accurately, in front of the TV) talking about elites or inclusive nationalism.
Rudd’s campaign was perfectly designed around this: kitchen table issues and working families. Now that he is Prime Minister, he is dealing with everything but kitchen table issues.
Lord Daniel wrote:
Are you seriously comparing an unstable military dictatorship in a third world country like Pakistan and Australia?
Seriously?
As others have said, a looming Chuck III and a wider appreciation of the implications of an elected president will ensure that a minimalist model will gain favour.
Nepal is an exception. Want me to list the hundred or so failed and corrupt republics out there?
Pakistan is an unstable, third world country with a dictator BECAUSE of its constitution, twit. There are two official power structures, the parliament and the president, with the military being an unofficial third.
Australia has a Head of Government, a Sovereign, and the Sovereign’s representative. We have no head of state. Interestingly, Canada, with its very similar constitution to ours, formally named their GG head of state in 2005. Here is the interesting thing, the High Court of Australia declared that the GG was the “constitutional head of the Commonwealth” and that the individual stage governors were the “constitutional heads of state.”. So we may in fact have half a dozen heads of state already. Given that the traditional definition of a head of state is the “foremost public representative of a nation-state”, and given that we have to formally request the Queen to represent us, I personally believe either the GG or the PM could be considered our head of state. Of course, as all these facts take away some of the republicans thunder, they pretend it isn’t so.
“As others have said, a looming Chuck III and a wider appreciation of the implications of an elected president will ensure that a minimalist model will gain favour.”
Tripe. Prince Charles is very popular in Australia (by the way, try and show some basic command of the facts, he has stated he will be crowned George VII), the idea that his succession will change anything is nonsense. Given that a coronation will be the media event of the century, it may well have the opposite effect.
But you silly little republicans still miss the point. It is not about Britain, or the Royal family. It is about our constitution. Not only have the republicans not even chosen a type of a republic, they are nowhere near choosing a specific model, something which is required for a referendum to take place. Even then, the 45% support for a monarchy is split between the two models, a great many republicans would rather cote No than vote for the model they dislike.
Fooling yourselves that it is inevitable just because you think it is a good thing may make you feel better, but it is removed from the reality.
The crux of the matter is you will have to ask the Australian people for a vast amount of money to pay for more politicians, more elections, more election campaigns. Either that or explain to the people why they should vote for a minimalist model already rejected in 1999, which will mean paying a vast amount of money for renaming the GG president. No referendum put twice to the Australian people has ever passed, so good luck.
Now explain to me why we should trust a bunch of politicians and intellectuals who have deliberately attempted to exclude all opposition debate, with rewriting the document which comprises the very fabric of our state? Is that the kind of republic we want, one where the opposition is prevented from public discourse and where so called ‘new ideas’ summits are gerrymandered to follow the public line exactly? I can hardly wait.
Lord Daniel wrote:
Ad hom == you lose. Try and hold your temper next time.
Wise, being crowned George the whatever, given the record of the Charlses. And this from some-one who rather likes Chasrles II.
Of course, he could have picked Edward IX. Failure to live up to monarchical responsibilities because one’s brain isn’t in the skiull. Nazi collaborator sent to Barbados during WW2 to keep him from fawning over Hitler. Now that one, DR, IMHO, ia a much better example of the pitfalls of monarchy than old George III.
Previous Edward, that is, just in case some mnonarchist deliberately misconstrues me. btw, in case youse forgot, I’m not a republican.
Yes Paul, Edward is a special case isn’t he. Although I note that the poms have a long history of monarch shopping every time the bloodline turns a bit sour. Why they ended up with a bunch of inbreds from Hanover has always been a bit of a mystery to me - divine right seems to be broken in a fundamental way.
Although, it might be easier to listen to the historians and give This guy a run.
An exception?
The majority of European monarchies fell in the years between 1792 and 1918 for precisely the same underlying reasons as destroyed the Nepalese royal family.
It’s no coincidence that very few republics elect to return to monarchy. In any case, the failed-state republics of the post-WWII world were mostly the product of 19th-century colonial overlords drawing random lines on maps that roped in peoples and groups that had never had anything to do with each other and never wanted anything to do with each other. In any case, few had any tradition of kingship. These nations, including Pakistan, were doomed to failure regardless of constitutional system. Interestingly, India, also a republic that incorporates an enormously diverse population, has managed better than Pakistan.
<