Should Australia become a Republic?

[ddt]

Mayor gropes Queen

It's time to get back to kind of reporting in the OP. This Saturday, we had "King's Day" in the Netherlands, to celebrate the King's birthday. His actual birthday was Sunday the 27th, but as we're a Christian country, hmm, Christians can't throw a party on Sunday, hmm, Christians are too busy on Sunday with attending church thrice, hmm, something with Christians, it couldn't be celebrated on Sunday but it was moved to Saturday.

All over the country, local Orange clubs organize all kind of childish outdoor games and activities. Childish is the right word, as this tradition was instituted when Wilhelmina became queen at the age of 10. The Royal family traditionally visits one or two towns. In one of those towns, the mayor, Fred de Graaf, just couldn't keep his hands off the Queen:



A TV show showed more clips (approx from the 4min mark) from the day with similar moves. De Graaf commented that "he could not recognize himself" in the footage. Incidentally, this is the same guy who last year, as Speaker of the Senate, pulled some tricks to keep Wilders out of the escort committee during the investiture.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's time to get back to kind of reporting in the OP. This Saturday, we had "King's Day" in the Netherlands, to celebrate the King's birthday. His actual birthday was Sunday the 27th, but as we're a Christian country, hmm, Christians can't throw a party on Sunday, hmm, Christians are too busy on Sunday with attending church thrice, hmm, something with Christians, it couldn't be celebrated on Sunday but it was moved to Saturday.

All over the country, local Orange clubs organize all kind of childish outdoor games and activities. Childish is the right word, as this tradition was instituted when Wilhelmina became queen at the age of 10. The Royal family traditionally visits one or two towns. In one of those towns, the mayor, Fred de Graaf, just couldn't keep his hands off the Queen:



A TV show showed more clips (approx from the 4min mark) from the day with similar moves. De Graaf commented that "he could not recognize himself" in the footage. Incidentally, this is the same guy who last year, as Speaker of the Senate, pulled some tricks to keep Wilders out of the escort committee during the investiture.

Oh no! How could such a thing happen? This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the superiority of the republican model. Faux pas on this scale are impossible in a republic.

 

[psionl0]

I'd have though it was pretty obvious.

We don't pull crap like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

or this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-votes-102911.html

for a start.

The US lacks a mechanism for resolving a deadlock between houses of congress but that doesn't mean that Australia would have to ditch its double dissolution provisions if it became a republic.

The fact that a president needs to win over both houses is an advantage - especially if the alternative is a prime minister who is virtually guaranteed that at least one house of parliament will rubber stamp any legislation he wants to get through. The public don't even have a say in who becomes the PM - only the party.

Consider also the fact that under the westminster system, members of the executive can only be chosen from the parliament - a place full of party hacks and yes men with almost no talent between them. OTOH the president can choose members of the executive from outside congress where there is a lot more talent and he is free from the need to satisfy factional deals in the process.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

Except that bad PMs can and often are deposed by their on party, as your own resent history shows.

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).

Of course it could, all it means is that to do so the President needs to have popular support of enough people who don't understand the consequences of their actions. There have been plenty of times in history where the population has called for a bad law or a bad change to a law because of a hot topic. Who's to say that a future charismatic President couldn't use that sort of thing to start to usurp powers and have popular support in doing so?

"If I had had power X I could have stopped the Government doing really bad thing Y.... vote me that power and I'll make sure it never happens again!"

 

[PhantomWolf]

The public don't even have a say in who becomes the PM - only the party.
OTOH the president can choose members of the executive from outside congress

All I can say is just wow...

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

How about Looking at Brazil, Burma, the Fourth French Republic, Russia, Syria, or Pakistan, to name a few? Cases where the presidents have ended up with more power or even become dictators.

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.

Or perhaps we can emulate Greece or Italy.... How many of the listed countries using this model would you want to live in?

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.

Yeah, when you ignore that 19 of the 21 countries that tried it and failed ended up becoming either full Presidential ones, or military dictatorships....

 

[PhantomWolf]

I thought I'd take a deeper look...

the First Philippine Republic

Lasted a little over two years before being defeated in a war with the US (becoming a colony was not voluntary). I did find this part interesting...

The constitution was approved by delegates to the Assembly of Representatives on January 20, 1899, and sanctioned by Aguinaldo the next day.[3] The convention had earlier elected Aguinaldo president on January 1, 1899, leading to his inauguration on January 23. Parts of the constitution gave Aguinaldo the power to rule by decree are of particular interest^]WP

the Second Polish Republic

The major political parties at this time were the National Democrats and other right-wing groups, various Peasant Parties, Christian Democrats, Polish Socialist Party, and political groups of ethnic minorities (German: German Social Democratic Party of Poland, Jewish: General Jewish Labour Bund in Poland, United Jewish Socialist Workers Party, and Ukrainian: Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance). Frequently changing governments (see Polish legislative election, 1919, Polish legislative election, 1922) and other negative publicity which the politicians received (such as accusations of corruption or 1919 Polish coup attempt), made them increasingly unpopular. Major politicians at this time included peasant activist Wincenty Witos (Prime Minister three times) and right-wing Roman Dmowski. Ethnic minorities were represented in the Sejm; e.g. in 1928 – 1930 there was the Ukrainian-Belarusian Club, with 26 Ukrainian and 4 Belarusian members.

After the Polish – Soviet war, Marshal Piłsudski led an intentionally modest life, writing historical books for a living. After he took power by a military coup in May 1926, he emphasized that he wanted to heal the Polish society and politics of excessive partisan politics. His regime, accordingly, was called Sanacja in Polish. The 1928 parliamentary elections were still considered free and fair, although the pro-Piłsudski Nonpartisan Bloc for Cooperation with the Government won them. The following three parliamentary elections (in 1930, 1935 and 1938) were manipulated, with opposition activists being sent to Bereza Kartuska prison (see also Brest trials). As a result, pro-government party Camp of National Unity won huge majorities in them. Piłsudski died just after an authoritarian constitution was approved in the spring of 1935. During the last four years of the Second Polish Republic, the major politicians included President Ignacy Mościcki, Foreign Minister Józef Beck and the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Army, Edward Rydz-Śmigły. The country was divided into 104 electoral districts, and those politicians who were forced to leave Poland, founded Front Morges in 1936. The government that ruled Second Polish Republic in its final years is frequently referred to as Piłsudski's colonels.^WP

the Third French Republic

Throughout its seventy-year history, the Third Republic stumbled from crisis to crisis, from dissolved parliaments to the appointment of a mentally ill president. It struggled through World War I against the German Empire and the inter-war years saw much political strife with a growing rift between the right and the left. When France was liberated in 1944, few called for a restoration of the Third Republic, and a Constituent Assembly was established in 1946 to draft a constitution for a successor, established as the Fourth Republic (1946 to 1958) that December, a parliamentary system not unlike the Third Republic.^WP

Yup, sounds like a divine system, if you want to end up with coups, an Authoritarian President, and a dysfunctional parliament...

 

[psionl0]

Except that bad PMs can and often are deposed by their on party, as your own resent history shows.

Yeah! We got to choose between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. No, wait ..... we didn't.

Of course it could, all it means is that to do so the President needs to have popular support of enough people who don't understand the consequences of their actions.

You really don't know much about the history of constitutional change in either Australia or the US.

All I can say is just wow...

Educational huh?

 

[Damien Evans]

Wow, her wiki page has a very unflattering photo. Or is that her normal image?

Yep, that's about normal for her. She's never seen in public without her pearls and a ton of makeup.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah! We got to choose between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. No, wait ..... we didn't.

You may not get to have a say in who the leader of the party is (unless you belong to the party in question) but you get to have a say in who in PM by voting for the party. Besides, that was not my point. My point was that bad PMs can be and are removed by their own parties, something that doesn't happen with a President.

You really don't know much about the history of constitutional change in either Australia or the US.

It's impossible to change either constitution?

Educational huh?

Only when you consider the nature of an argument that suggests that it is bad that you only get to indirectly vote in a PM and that PM only has a choice of people who were elected into office to create an executive, whereas it is perfectly acceptable for a totally unelected executive to be placed into position at a President's whim.

 

[Wildy]

It's impossible to change either constitution?

In the case of Australia it practically is. The double majority is a rather tough hurdle that has to be passed.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not literally impossible, but in practice extremely unlikely.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'd have though it was pretty obvious.

We don't pull crap like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

or this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-votes-102911.html

for a start.

The proposed model, that simply removed the royal family from the scene, changed nothing in practice, except that we now had an Australian head of state. The queen only does what she is told, nothing more.

 

[psionl0]

You may not get to have a say in who the leader of the party is (unless you belong to the party in question) but you get to have a say in who in PM by voting for the party. Besides, that was not my point. My point was that bad PMs can be and are removed by their own parties, something that doesn't happen with a President.

Although the US has no provision for resolving deadlocks, its president can still be impeached.

If the government was dysfunctional, it would almost certainly be easier to force a president back to the polls in Australia.

It's impossible to change either constitution?

You can google the details if you like but suffice to say that a proposal to change the constitution that didn't have bi-partisan support will never succeed. Even then, proposals that give the government greater powers invariably get given short shrift by the voters.

Only when you consider the nature of an argument that suggests that it is bad that you only get to indirectly vote in a PM and that PM only has a choice of people who were elected into office to create an executive, whereas it is perfectly acceptable for a totally unelected executive to be placed into position at a President's whim.

You think it's a good thing if the president can only use talentless yes men after wrangling with different political factions instead of getting the best person for the job?

 

[psionl0]

The proposed model, that simply removed the royal family from the scene, changed nothing in practice, except that we now had an Australian head of state. The queen only does what she is told, nothing more.

The proposal that went to referendum was not quite the "ultra-minimalist" proposal that you make it to be (which is a pity since that proposal might have passed).

Under the proposed constitutional changes, the president would only be able to act on the advice of the prime minister and in fact, the prime minister could instantly dismiss the president anywhere and any time. It effectively handed all of the powers of the crown to the prime minister. Opponents of the proposal dubbed it the "politician's republic".

 

[anglolawyer]

To sum up - the skeptical monarchists are afraid that Australia is not yet grown up enough to put in place a limited, ceremonial presidential system that won't be subverted by a power-crazed Nazi and would rather this extremely delicate and challenging role were handled for them by the mother country. Fair enough. Here are some pictures of Kate's frocks on her recent tour down under to keep you happy instead.

 

[MG1962]

To sum up - the skeptical monarchists are afraid that Australia is not yet grown up enough to put in place a limited, ceremonial presidential system that won't be subverted by a power-crazed Nazi and would rather this extremely delicate and challenging role were handled for them by the mother country. Fair enough. Here are some pictures of Kate's frocks on her recent tour down under to keep you happy instead.

To really sum up - The Westminster system has a proven track record of providing robust political solutions to a nations issues

 

[a_unique_person]

To really sum up - The Westminster system has a proven track record of providing robust political solutions to a nations issues

The Queen does nothing more than 'take advice' from her Prime Minister. That is, she does what she is told.

 

[AcesHigh]

How about Looking at Brazil, Burma, the Fourth French Republic, Russia, Syria, or Pakistan, to name a few? Cases where the presidents have ended up with more power or even become dictators.

when that happened with Brazil?

 

[anglolawyer]

To really sum up - The Westminster system has a proven track record of providing robust political solutions to a nations issues

That must be it. And yet India did not keep the queen as sovereign and somehow manages to be a stable democracy.

The Constitution follows parliamentary system of government and the executive is directly accountable to legislature. Article 74 provides that there shall be a Prime Minister of India as the head of government. It also states that there shall be a President of India and a Vice-President of India under Articles 52 and 63. Unlike the Prime Minister, the President largely performs ceremonial roles.
The Constitution of India is federal in nature. Each State and each Union territory of India have their own government. Analogues to President and Prime Minister, the Governor in case of States, Lieutenant Governor for Union territories and the Chief Minister. The 73rd and 74th Amendment Act also introduced the system of Panchayati Raj in rural areas and Municipality in urban areas. Also, Article 370 of the Constitution gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Seems very well suited to Oz ...