Should Australia become a Republic?

[Wildy]

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.

Unfortunately the Republican movement has not decided on which model to adopt. The first type might be more popular with the people who may think that a directly elected president would be a good idea, except that may require a fundamental redesign of the separation of powers which is another hurdle as it would require a change to the Constitution. The second type would theoretically be better except that an election system similar to the German/Irish/Italian kind was voted down in the 1999 referendum.

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.

Does this mean the form of government a former colonial power has all these negatives attached to it? Are all monarchies of former colonies examples of this? And does this depend on the form of government in the ruling power when a colony gained independence?

How does a republic represent "mature nationhood"? Is India a more mature nation then the UK? Is Suriname a more mature nation compared to the Netherlands? Is South Korea a more mature nation then Japan?

Why not change your flag to an ocker downing a glass of Fosters?

Because that would be a stupid flag.

Also, tie me kangaroo down sport as your national anthem.

Why would we want to change our national anthem? We just wouldn't have a royal anthem any more.

 

[a_unique_person]

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?

Hence the "minimalist" proposal, just remove references to the queen, have the GG replaced by a president, done.

 

[anglolawyer]

Unfortunately the Republican movement has not decided on which model to adopt. The first type might be more popular with the people who may think that a directly elected president would be a good idea, except that may require a fundamental redesign of the separation of powers which is another hurdle as it would require a change to the Constitution. The second type would theoretically be better except that an election system similar to the German/Irish/Italian kind was voted down in the 1999 referendum.

Both types have a directly elected president. You would need to change a lot to have the powerful president but only a little to have the titular one. I am not Australian and couldn't care less which.

Does this mean the form of government a former colonial power has all these negatives attached to it? Are all monarchies of former colonies examples of this? And does this depend on the form of government in the ruling power when a colony gained independence?

Yes. Don't know but probably. Don't know, don't think so. Monarchy is bad everywhere because it is inegalitarian and anachronistic.

How does a republic represent "mature nationhood"? Is India a more mature nation then the UK? Is Suriname a more mature nation compared to the Netherlands? Is South Korea a more mature nation then Japan?

A republican Australia symbolises a mature, independent Australia. We are talking about the brand. Brands matter, apparently. All kinds of things go to make up the Australian brand, the vestigial remnant of monarchical sovereignty being just one of them, the one we are talking about. Your questions don't address this point.

Because that would be a stupid flag.

Having sovereignty embodied in a particular familial line is also stupid.

Why would we want to change our national anthem? We just wouldn't have a royal anthem any more.

The point I was making was that if branding doesn't matter why not make complete twats of yourselves and have a stupid anthem as well as a random family of not terribly bright or talented people based on the other side of the world as the sole providers of your sovereign? Here's a question: why not have an Australian monarchy? Just pick a family by lot and say that one will forever be the monarchy. Come on. Why not?

 

[ddt]

Both types have a directly elected president.

Actually, not. The German president is elected by a special council, composed of all federal MPs, and an equal number of representatives of the states, elected by the MPs of the state parliaments.

There's no need for the titular president to be directly elected. Theoretically, there's no need for the US-style president to be directly elected either, but it's harder to swallow if that's not the case.

Brands matter, apparently.

Yes. A lot of people like the brand Hanover Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Windsor. A lot of people like the brand Orange. Especially the Sun and Daily Fail-reading types - and the editors of those newspapers, as they can fill more spreads with Andy-and-Kate type photos.

 

[anglolawyer]

Actually, not. The German president is elected by a special council, composed of all federal MPs, and an equal number of representatives of the states, elected by the MPs of the state parliaments.

There's no need for the titular president to be directly elected. Theoretically, there's no need for the US-style president to be directly elected either, but it's harder to swallow if that's not the case.


Yes. A lot of people like the brand Hanover Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Windsor. A lot of people like the brand Orange. Especially the Sun and Daily Fail-reading types - and the editors of those newspapers, as they can fill more spreads with Andy-and-Kate type photos.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Indirectly elected is still better than heredity. If I were drafting the new Aussie constitution I would ensure the pres. did not emerge as the result of party politics. Maybe the pres. would be selected by lot. Or there might be a popularity poll with the ten most popular candidates going forward to an actual vote. The pres. should be above politics. This is, superficially, an imagined advantage of the monarchy but only if one forgets that monarchs are essentially conservative defenders of the status quo which tolerates them, even if superficially neutral between the centrally-positioned main parties.

I'm serious. If the UK abolished the monarchy, what would Oz do? Invent it's own?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Arguments against....

Andrew Johnson.
Richard Nixon.
Jimmy Carter.
George H W Bush.
George W Bush.
Vladimir Putin.
François Hollande.
Jacob Zuma.
Ferdinand Marcos.
Joseph Estrada.
Abdurrahman Wahid.

I'm sure I could find more without trouble.

The biggest issue with becoming a Republic is that whoever ends up in the position of President is going to eventually want the power that is seen to go with the title. Currently Australia (like we do) has a powerless figurehead that fills a very powerful position. This means that in a Constitutional Monarchy no-one has Presidential powers. The Military, Police, and Government itself are all sworn to the Crown, not to a President, but the Crown has no power to use those forces against the people of the country. A President does.

Ango stated previously, what is the harm... The list above is the harm.

 

[Lensman]

I don't know why some posters here keep insisting that the Queen is German - so what if her ancestors were, she was born in England, her father was born in England & her mother was born in Scotland, her grandparents were born in England - she's British!

My father was born in Jugoslavia, my mother was born in Wales, I was born in Wales - I'm British!

I have ancestors that were born in Southern Ireland, I may even have ancestors that were born in the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires, I'm still bloody British!!

If you go back far enough, I might have Saxon, Roman, Gallic, Greek, Hebrew or Arabic ancestors, I'm still bloody British!!!

Just STOP saying that she's German!!!! (not that there's anything wrong with being German )

 

[wombatwal]

Just STOP saying that she's German!!!! (not that there's anything wrong with being German )

But just don't mention the war.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know why some posters here keep insisting that the Queen is German - so what if her ancestors were, she was born in England, her father was born in England & her mother was born in Scotland, her grandparents were born in England - she's British!

My father was born in Jugoslavia, my mother was born in Wales, I was born in Wales - I'm British!

I have ancestors that were born in Southern Ireland, I may even have ancestors that were born in the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman Empires, I'm still bloody British!!

If you go back far enough, I might have Saxon, Roman, Gallic, Greek, Hebrew or Arabic ancestors, I'm still bloody British!!!

Just STOP saying that she's German!!!! (not that there's anything wrong with being German )

But caricatures are funny!

Ha ha! The Queen's German, right, and that's way dumb because she's supposed to be the Queen of England and then she's all genteel but the Aussies are uncivilized and uncouth ockers who down cans of Fosters and have corks coming out of their hats and they have kangaroos! Ha ha!

 

[angrysoba]

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.

That's easy. Have the GG appointed the same way the monarch currently is...


by God!*
















* Yes, I know. At least two things wrong with that:

a) The English Royal Family have long since given up claims to "rule" by Divine Right; now God merely saves the Queen when she gets into a bit of bother.

b) There is no God.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't know why some posters here keep insisting that the Queen is German

It's a form of poisoning the well, alone with the claims of them being "Freeloaders" and "Layabouts".

In reality the Crown Estates, the income of which was given over to the Government in exchange for the Monarchy's payments in return, far outstrips the cost of the Monarchy. Also the Royals have a schedule that has them working 365 days a year, with no retirement package. On top of that all of the non-monarch Royals have held "normal" jobs on top of their Royal Duties for at least some part of their working lives. (Often in the Military.)

But hey, if you create a false picture them as a bunch of freeloading, foreign, layabouts, it makes your argument stronger right?

 

[ddt]

Arguments against....

Andrew Johnson.
Richard Nixon.
Jimmy Carter.
George H W Bush.
George W Bush.
Vladimir Putin.
François Hollande.
Jacob Zuma.
Ferdinand Marcos.
Joseph Estrada.
Abdurrahman Wahid.

I'm sure I could find more without trouble.

The biggest issue with becoming a Republic is that whoever ends up in the position of President is going to eventually want the power that is seen to go with the title. Currently Australia (like we do) has a powerless figurehead that fills a very powerful position. This means that in a Constitutional Monarchy no-one has Presidential powers. The Military, Police, and Government itself are all sworn to the Crown, not to a President, but the Crown has no power to use those forces against the people of the country. A President does.

Ango stated previously, what is the harm... The list above is the harm.

All of those were/are presidents in a presidential or semi-presidential system. Anglolawyer has argued for a system of parliamentary republic, i.e., a system in which the president fulfills largely a ceremonial role (and holds some very restricted reserve powers for emergencies). In a nutshell, the Westminster system with a president instead of a king/queen.

 

[a_unique_person]

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Indirectly elected is still better than heredity. If I were drafting the new Aussie constitution I would ensure the pres. did not emerge as the result of party politics. Maybe the pres. would be selected by lot. Or there might be a popularity poll with the ten most popular candidates going forward to an actual vote. The pres. should be above politics. This is, superficially, an imagined advantage of the monarchy but only if one forgets that monarchs are essentially conservative defenders of the status quo which tolerates them, even if superficially neutral between the centrally-positioned main parties.

I'm serious. If the UK abolished the monarchy, what would Oz do? Invent it's own?

Yes, that is one of the jokes going around.

 

[PhantomWolf]

All of those were/are presidents in a presidential or semi-presidential system. Anglolawyer has argued for a system of parliamentary republic, i.e., a system in which the president fulfills largely a ceremonial role (and holds some very restricted reserve powers for emergencies). In a nutshell, the Westminster system with a president instead of a king/queen.

But as I pointed out, you put someone into a position of "president" and sooner of later they are going to want to wield the power of a President. Who would want to be a gelded Head of State that is powerless and no more than a figurehead to be trotted out on official occasions to wave to people? Over time a President is going to claim more and more power until they are the one running the show and your "parliamentary republic" is in name only.

Looking at your link, how many of those countries inspire the idea of a great country? 4 or 5? Look at the list of what happened to others that tried it...

 

[MG1962]

It's a form of poisoning the well, alone with the claims of them being "Freeloaders" and "Layabouts".

In reality the Crown Estates, the income of which was given over to the Government in exchange for the Monarchy's payments in return, far outstrips the cost of the Monarchy. Also the Royals have a schedule that has them working 365 days a year, with no retirement package. On top of that all of the non-monarch Royals have held "normal" jobs on top of their Royal Duties for at least some part of their working lives. (Often in the Military.)

But hey, if you create a false picture them as a bunch of freeloading, foreign, layabouts, it makes your argument stronger right?

And remembering the Queen herself is a real penny pincher. She was still doing repairs and service to her personal Land Rover into her 60's

 

[psionl0]

Arguments against....

Andrew Johnson.
Richard Nixon.
Jimmy Carter.
George H W Bush.
George W Bush.
Vladimir Putin.
François Hollande.
Jacob Zuma.
Ferdinand Marcos.
Joseph Estrada.
Abdurrahman Wahid.

I'm sure I could find more without trouble.

You could also compile a list of bad prime ministers if you wanted to make a case against the westminster system.

The issue of presidents appropriating more powers for themselves only occurs in countries where the constitution can be changed at will like happened in Russia. It could not happen in countries where constitutional change has to be ratified by the states (US) or by the public (Australia).

 

[ddt]

I don't know why some posters here keep insisting that the Queen is German - so what if her ancestors were,

<snip>

Just STOP saying that she's German!!!! (not that there's anything wrong with being German )

As for my part in that: there's nothing wrong in pointing out that their proper surname would be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Apparently, they thought themselves there was something wrong with being of German ancestry, back in 1915. Just as their good friends the Battenbergs Mountbattens.

But just don't mention the war.

Wrong war.

 

[ddt]

But as I pointed out, you put someone into a position of "president" and sooner of later they are going to want to wield the power of a President. Who would want to be a gelded Head of State that is powerless and no more than a figurehead to be trotted out on official occasions to wave to people? Over time a President is going to claim more and more power until they are the one running the show and your "parliamentary republic" is in name only.

Evidence??? Look at the German case. Most of those presidents were ex-politicians who were at the end of their career. They get to play the president for five year, and then go into retirement. One or two of them liked it so much they did a second term. I don't see the danger of trying to usurp more power.

Looking at your link, how many of those countries inspire the idea of a great country? 4 or 5?

What is your idea of a "great country"? That's entirely in the eye of the beholder. What about San Marino that has had this system since 301AD. Seems a successful model there.

Look at the list of what happened to others that tried it...

Like the First Philippine Republic, that became a US colony? Or the Second Polish Republic that lasted until 1939? Or the Third French Republic that lasted until 1940? I see little in those that can be blamed on the particular constitutional model.

 

[Craig B]

Actually, not. The German president is elected by a special council, composed of all federal MPs, and an equal number of representatives of the states, elected by the MPs of the state parliaments.

There's no need for the titular president to be directly elected. Theoretically, there's no need for the US-style president to be directly elected either, but it's harder to swallow if that's not the case.

Is the U.S. president directly elected?

The election of the President and the Vice President of the United States is an indirect vote in which citizens cast ballots for a slate of members of the U.S. Electoral College; these electors in turn directly elect the President and Vice President

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election This source also notes that

Then in 1876, 1888 and 2000, the winner of electoral vote lost the popular vote outright. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking to replace the Electoral College with a direct popular vote, but none has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress. Another alternate proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an interstate compact whereby individual participating states agree to allocate their electors based on the winner of the national popular vote instead of just their respective statewide results.

 

[angrysoba]

As for my part in that: there's nothing wrong in pointing out that their proper surname would be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Apparently, they thought themselves there was something wrong with being of German ancestry, back in 1915. Just as their good friends the Battenbergs Mountbattens.

And of course in Russia, they changed the name from St Petersburg to Petrograd to sound more Russian. It seems to have fooled Boney M as well, hence the lyrics:

"Ra-ra-rasputin, lover of the German Russian Queen!"