Should Australia become a Republic?

[anglolawyer]

I'm an unashamed Monarchist but I don't think I have a valid reason for being so and if the majority of my countryblokes and countrysheilas vote for a republic then I'll embrace it with open arms.

Having said that though, a Pharaohdom is the obvious way to go.

now that is a great idea.

 

[psionl0]

...................... the useless layabouts monarchy.

Don't you mean "Australian politicians"?

FWIW I think a variation of the US system would suit Australia better than the Westminster system - even if only millionaires can get the top job. It beats handing most of the power to an unpopular PM chosen by party hacks.

However, support for a republic wanes every year. The contrast between Wills and Kate vs Australian politicians is so great that many would rather ditch the politicians than the royal family.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't you mean "Australian politicians"?

FWIW I think a variation of the US system would suit Australia better than the Westminster system - even if only millionaires can get the top job. It beats handing most of the power to an unpopular PM chosen by party hacks.

However, support for a republic wanes every year. The contrast between Wills and Kate vs Australian politicians is so great that many would rather ditch the politicians than the royal family.

The prez would just be a good bloke, or Shiela, like Richie Benaud or somebody like that. Not a party hack. Their role would be mostly ceremonial and formal but, once in a while, they would have to arbitrate a constitutional crisis, for which purpose they would do exactly what the GG does now. I find the idea that only a person chosen by heredity can do this mind-blowing frankly.

The best of all worlds would be if everybody ahead of either Princes Anfrew or Edward snuffed it and one of them ascended the throne. They are both such unlikeable berks it would be only a question of time before they were deposed in a wave of republican ardour.

 

[MG1962]

If that is the case, then a valid reason for the monarchy could be that it beats the alternatives.

The last time this came up, that was exactly the question that gave me pause. We were being asked to consider a change, without the details of what the change exactly would be. Now I know that was a Howard engineered move to ensure nothing did change.

But the core question was - Is any republican model inherently better as a form of government than a constitutional monarchy based on the Westminster system.

For me the answer was a resounding no

 

[angrysoba]

United Republingdom.

Former United Kingdom Republic or FUKR for brevity.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm an unashamed Monarchist but I don't think I have a valid reason for being so and if the majority of my countryblokes and countrysheilas vote for a republic then I'll embrace it with open arms.

Having said that though, a Pharaohdom is the obvious way to go.

Isn't this the type of situation where the status quo serves as a kind of null hypothesis, and any proposed differences in constitutional arrangement need to bear the burden of proof?

I believe so, yes.

I also believe that this is borne out by the historical record wherein referenda in Australia (i.e. government proposals to vary the status quo) have been responded to in the negative by a rate of something just over 4:1

(This is not a completely rhetorical question. It may be that there are arguments against the status quo regardless of what replaces it.)

The only arguments I ever hear against the monarchy are variations on "Why should we be paying for those spongers to live the high life?" I can't remember the last time I heard a valid political, economic or ideological argument that might sway me from my support of the status quo.

If that is the case, then a valid reason for the monarchy could be that it beats the alternatives.

Yes, and perhaps even more to the point, it beats the hell out of a vague "something else" which is all we were offered the last time the question was put to a referendum.

 

[Akhenaten]

If that is the case, then a valid reason for the monarchy could be that it beats the alternatives.

The last time this came up, that was exactly the question that gave me pause. We were being asked to consider a change, without the details of what the change exactly would be. Now I know that was a Howard engineered move to ensure nothing did change.

But the core question was - Is any republican model inherently better as a form of government than a constitutional monarchy based on the Westminster system.

For me the answer was a resounding no.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[MG1962]

My thoughts exactly.

The thing that kept popping into my head whenever I considered the question was the 1919 German constitution. An all round good document that had a fatal flaw that saw an evil man bring indescribable sadness to the world.

The Australian constitution has been cut and polished for a 100 years. Loosening a screw here, tighten a bolt there, and it is pretty much where we want it

Do we really want to go through and reinvent the wheel for nothing more than emotional satisfaction?

 

[ddt]

The thing that kept popping into my head whenever I considered the question was the 1919 German constitution. An all round good document that had a fatal flaw that saw an evil man bring indescribable sadness to the world.

The Australian constitution has been cut and polished for a 100 years. Loosening a screw here, tighten a bolt there, and it is pretty much where we want it

Do we really want to go through and reinvent the wheel for nothing more than emotional satisfaction?

Isn't that concern a bit overblown? In Australia, the duties of a (largely) ceremonial head of state are already fulfilled not by the Monarch, but by the Governor-General. You could essentially just cut out the Monarch of the equation (a bit of tweaking needed how the GG then is appointed), and carry on as usual.

 

[Akhenaten]

The thing that kept popping into my head whenever I considered the question was the 1919 German constitution. An all round good document that had a fatal flaw that saw an evil man bring indescribable sadness to the world.

The Australian constitution has been cut and polished for a 100 years. Loosening a screw here, tighten a bolt there, and it is pretty much where we want it

Do we really want to go through and reinvent the wheel for nothing more than emotional satisfaction?

Isn't that concern a bit overblown?

It's an example of the worst that can happen when institutions are tampered with unnecessarily (by those who harbour either unsavoury ambitions of their own or malice towards their perceived enemies, or both). The range of things that might happen includes a great many less extreme but nonetheless undesirable things that might happen as a result of radical change.

In Australia, the duties of a (largely) ceremonial head of state are already fulfilled not by the Monarch, but by the Governor-General. You could essentially just cut out the Monarch of the equation (a bit of tweaking needed how the GG then is appointed), and carry on as usual.

Then why not leave things as they are and, as you say, carry on as usual.

Unless, of course, some demonstrable advantage can be shown by instituting the changes you suggest.

Mind you, I think your suggestion, at least in some measure, would fall under MG1962's ambit of "loosening a screw here, tighten a bolt there". My main objection is against those who would prefer to throw out the whole machine and install something completely new without really understanding how either the old one worked or how the new (as yet undefined) one would offer any benefit.

The number of people who argue against me that we need to end the ability of the Queen to arbitrate matters of high import is quite depressing sometimes, given that the people making such arguments obviously don't have a bloody clue how our government actually works.

 

[psionl0]

The prez would just be a good bloke, or Shiela, like Richie Benaud or somebody like that.

That is precisely why the republic referendum lost. We don't want a republic where the PM has all the power.

The US doesn't even need a prime minister. Why should Australia have one?

 

[MG1962]

Isn't that concern a bit overblown? In Australia, the duties of a (largely) ceremonial head of state are already fulfilled not by the Monarch, but by the Governor-General. You could essentially just cut out the Monarch of the equation (a bit of tweaking needed how the GG then is appointed), and carry on as usual.

The thing is there was no promise that was going to be the model we would use. The referendum was set up to be in two stages. First do you want to change the constitution - If passed, then the model to change to was to be discussed.

How it should have been done was the exact reveres. Give the voters three options for a republican constitution. The most popular by vote goes to a straight shoot out with the current constitution.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is precisely why the republic referendum lost. We don't want a republic where the PM has all the power.

The US doesn't even need a prime minister. Why should Australia have one?

Huh? Australia has a PM now and it would still have one. The President would be of the mainly ceremonial and titular variety. Like in Ireland and Germany. You do understand that don't you? There are at least two kinds of presidency: the American/French kind and the Irish/German (and Italian) kind. They are radically different from each other. Right now, effectively, Oz has a president (second type) called Elizabeth and its next one has been chosen for it by inheritance. Barring accidents, so have the two after that.

It will make very little practical difference if you replace the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas with Richie Benaud or Germaine Greer except symbolically. If you want to argue that symbols don't matter please explain why there seem to be so many.

For Australia, the monarchy symbolises an imperial, subservient colonial past, patronage, privilege, deference, hierarchy. An elected Pres. would symbolise modernity, democracy, equality, independence and mature nationhood.

Why not change your flag to an ocker downing a glass of Fosters? What difference would it make? Also, tie me kangaroo down sport as your national anthem.

 

[psionl0]

Huh? Australia has a PM now and it would still have one. The President would be of the mainly ceremonial and titular variety. Like in Ireland and Germany. You do understand that don't you?

That doesn't answer my post at all.

If Australia is to continue to have a head of state (like Ireland or Germany) who is just a figurehead then there is no point in becoming a republic. It wouldn't even save money since a president would cost just as much to keep as a governor general.

OTOH if Australia was to become a republic then why must the model be one that keeps a prime minister?

 

[MG1962]

The number of people who argue against me that we need to end the ability of the Queen to arbitrate matters of high import is quite depressing sometimes, given that the people making such arguments obviously don't have a bloody clue how our government actually works.

That was borne out when we really did have a constitution crisis. Asked the Queen and her reaction was "You woke me up for that" The Queen then very politely told us to piss off and figure it out for ourselves - Which given the impasse meant it was taken back to the people, and we moved on

 

[anglolawyer]

That doesn't answer my post at all.

If Australia is to continue to have a head of state (like Ireland or Germany) who is just a figurehead then there is no point in becoming a republic. It wouldn't even save money since a president would cost just as much to keep as a governor general.

OTOH if Australia was to become a republic then why must the model be one that keeps a prime minister?

The cost is nugatory with either system. Fine by me if you want a full-on presidential system.

 

[Damien Evans]

That is precisely why the republic referendum lost. We don't want a republic where the PM has all the power.

The US doesn't even need a prime minister. Why should Australia have one?

Because we don't want the insane twisted mess of a political system that the USA has.

 

[Lensman]

Personally I would like the UK to be a republic the whole idea that someone can be born to rule over a place is absurd, why should I unquestioningly give loyalty to someone simply because they are born, the only family I owe any loyalty to is my own.

If the windsors are really that popular it should be put to a vote once every 10 years as to whether they carry on as monarchs or not.

Actually, the Queen doesn't rule, Parliament does that, the Queen merely reigns.

 

[psionl0]

Because we don't want the insane twisted mess of a political system that the USA has.

Why not?

 

[ddt]

Then why not leave things as they are and, as you say, carry on as usual.

Unless, of course, some demonstrable advantage can be shown by instituting the changes you suggest.

There is one principled objection, and several practical ones. I'll draw examples from the Dutch monarchy, but I think the Dutch and British/Aussie/Canadian/... monarchy are close enough in how they work that those objections equally apply to the British case.

The principled point is that the function of monarch is not open to anyone, but only to the descendants of Sophia of Hanover resp. king William I of Orange. Every function, whether public or private, is open to anyone, but only one specific family can become monarch. That is fundamentally undemocratic. The historic rationale behind it is that nobility, and royalty in particular, are somehow "special" people. Nobody believes anymore in that pretense, much less the royals themselves, as they now routinely marry commoners and not other royals/nobles. Our king William II, mid 19th Century, married the daughter of the Czar; our current king married the daughter of an Argentinian mass murderer. Hmm, looked that way not much has changed. (The additional argument brought by Orangists is that our royals are descended from William the Silent, which is nonsense because the current ones are descended from his brother).

My first practical objection is that a monarchy means a royal family, with a lot of good-for-nothing parasites hanging around it who live on the public purse: kids, grandkids, siblings, cousins, they're all part of this royal family and must be maintained. On the flipside, I concede, they may also serve as auxiliary ribbon-cutters.

My second practical objection entails all those minor annoyances and crises, caused by the abuse of rights and privileges by not only the monarch, but the whole wider royal family, people who were born with a golden spoon to begin with. The Dutch constitution plainly says "the king is inviolable, the ministers are responsible", so the monarch gets away with what he does, and so does his family. In the last ten years, we've had the queen, more probably her father, ordering the intelligence service to spy on her niece and her husband - an affair we haven't seen yet the end of; a controversial holiday home of the crown prince (now king) in Mozambique; and the queen's sister administering her Guernsey tax evasion scheme from the queen's royal palace. In the British context, I could think of Charles' continuous letter writing to ministers.

My third practical objection is in line with that: the major constitutional crises. In the Netherlands, we came close to the abolishment of monarchy in the mid-1970s, when it turned out that prince Bernhard had received bribes from Lockheed (and Northrop). In the cabinet, Catholic vice-PM and Justice Minister Van Agt argued, with a large minority in the cabinet, that Bernhard should be prosecuted as any common criminal, but Labour PM Den Uyl shied away from that. In case of a prosecution, queen Juliana would have abdicated and princess Beatrix would have refused the throne, so a near-certain end of the monarchy would have resulted. The choice is to let a high-profile criminal go free, or to have to rewrite the constitution on the spot.

A German-style presidency does not suffer these problems. A president does not bring with him a family that is owed reverence too. And a president with a scandal can resign, or be deposed, as the recent case in Germany shows: Christian Wulff was accused of corruption, he resigned, new elections were held and Germany had a new president.

Mind you, I think your suggestion, at least in some measure, would fall under MG1962's ambit of "loosening a screw here, tighten a bolt there". My main objection is against those who would prefer to throw out the whole machine and install something completely new without really understanding how either the old one worked or how the new (as yet undefined) one would offer any benefit.

The number of people who argue against me that we need to end the ability of the Queen to arbitrate matters of high import is quite depressing sometimes, given that the people making such arguments obviously don't have a bloody clue how our government actually works.

It's certainly not my intention to throw out constitutional history. I'm aware that the actual interaction between parliament, ministers and monarch is something that is grown over the years and decades, and is largely a matter of custom and tradition rather than black-letter law. In fact, while no-one seriously argues in the Netherlands about abolishment of the monarchy (damn you, Maxima), we had a serious constitutional novelty in 2012. Custom had it, in the Netherlands, that after elections, all party leaders would visit the queen and advise her on which coalition to form. The queen, then, would appoint an "informateur" who would probe the viability of one (or more) coalitions. This is, IMHO, the greatest actual power the Dutch monarch wielded, but it was nowhere written down. After the 2012 elections, parliament decided to take matters into their own hands, and appointed an informateur themselves.

To be absolutely clear: my only point is that the hereditary principle of the function of "head of state" is archaic and should be abolished.