Trevor WholohanThe Australian Republic
August 12th 2008 10:31
Kevin Rudd has said that the new Labor government will revisit the issue of the Australian republic. with a possible plebiscite, followed by a referendum. The proposed plebiscite can only be an indicative process, since it will have no constitutional standing. Typically, the strongest support for the republic has come from the Labor side of the political spectrum, although we do have republicans on the conservative side as well.
The arguments for and against have rarely been expressed in concrete terms, such as bringing greater prosperity or greater political freedom to the country. We are told of the need to “cut the apron strings” or “cut the painter” suggesting we in some way remain subordinate to Great Britain. Perhaps we would “come of age” as a country if we were to assert our independence by abandoning the monarchy. Another argument is that we would somehow have more respect in our region if we became a republic. The counter arguments include the notion that we have a system that has served us well and we ought not to change it. Another suggestion is that there are many republics which have had oppressive and totalitarian governments, and we don’t want that for Australia.
These type of arguments are emotional, psychological, and hard to quantify, but do seem persuasive. They relate to perceptions, and of course, in politics, perceptions count.
We have been discussing a republican form of government in Australia from about the 1830s. Prominent republicans at this time were well known Australians such as John Dunmore Lang, Daniel Deniehy and the poet Charles Harpur.
At the time of the campaign for federation, more conservative sentiments prevailed. These were probably influenced by the perceived dependency on Britain for defence of the colonies, and the desire to ensure that the federation proposal did get up. The early supporters of federation also looked at the American model, but sought something uniquely Australian.
In 1998 we had a constitutional convention assembled to draw up a proposal to put to the Australian people. This they did, and a referendum was held in 1999. The republican side of the debate was divided on the question of direct election of the proposed president, and eventually the convention chose a model that provided for the parliament to choose the president. The opinion polls before the referendum suggested that a direct election model might have been accepted by the Australian people. The referendum was defeated.
An import point to consider with the republic is that it is not a blood-in-the-streets issue. None of us will end up dead if we become a republic, and none will if we don’t. This means considerable effort of leadership and persuasion will be needed to have a referendum approved by the voters. At the time of the 1999 referendum, the Prime Minister, John Howard, was opposed to the republic, and this was fatal to the proposal. At the very least, both major parties must support the proposal.
It is, however, more difficult than just getting both major political parties to agree to the referendum proposal. In the 1980s, a referendum proposal submitted by the Hawke government was supported by the opposition. The referendum was defeated. The people saw this as an issue where they simply did not trust the politicians. This lack of trust of our political leaders has long been part of the Australian character, and I would suggest it is a good attitude for the people to have. We are less likely than most to have our political system hijacked by an extremist demagogue. This attitude, together with the double majority required, makes even worthwhile reforms difficult to get up. Difficult that is, not impossible.
I have long believed that true leaders must take the people with them. It is not good enough, certainly not in the Australian democracy, for I leader to simply say “I know best”. We will break your heart if that is all you do. This is where persuasion comes in; persuasion that is, not spin. Talk down to us and we will agree with everything you say and then vote for the other bloke!
The highest “no” votes in the 1999 referendum were in the less populous states, with Queensland scoring a quite large 60% vote for “no”. The problem in part was the perceived values of the republicans. Regional Australia does not trust the smooth talking elites of the terrible triangle (Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne). The task is to convince more Australians to take ownership of the republic, and this will be not be easy. Showing a little humility and a little less of the messianic mission would seem to be a good start for the pro-republicans.
A part of the problem of persuading the majority to support the switch is the genuine respect and affection felt for the present monarch. The Queen is seen to have been doing an extraordinarily good job in an extremely difficult world. The glib jibes about the younger members of the royal family simply won’t remove these feelings. So long as the Queen remains on the throne, the rest do not matter. As for the younger ones, who is bonking whom in merry old England has no constitutional significance for Australia.
History tells us that the chance of a referendum being successful is quite remote. The outstanding success story is the referendum of 1967, which dealt with the treatment of indigenous Australians. This was a situation where bi-partisan support and a compelling moral case ensured a successful result.
It seems unlikely that a constitutional change to a republic will ever be approved. The circumstances for either the country or the monarchy would have to be radically different. Such circumstances are nowhere in sight at the moment.
The arguments for and against have rarely been expressed in concrete terms, such as bringing greater prosperity or greater political freedom to the country. We are told of the need to “cut the apron strings” or “cut the painter” suggesting we in some way remain subordinate to Great Britain. Perhaps we would “come of age” as a country if we were to assert our independence by abandoning the monarchy. Another argument is that we would somehow have more respect in our region if we became a republic. The counter arguments include the notion that we have a system that has served us well and we ought not to change it. Another suggestion is that there are many republics which have had oppressive and totalitarian governments, and we don’t want that for Australia.
These type of arguments are emotional, psychological, and hard to quantify, but do seem persuasive. They relate to perceptions, and of course, in politics, perceptions count.
We have been discussing a republican form of government in Australia from about the 1830s. Prominent republicans at this time were well known Australians such as John Dunmore Lang, Daniel Deniehy and the poet Charles Harpur.
At the time of the campaign for federation, more conservative sentiments prevailed. These were probably influenced by the perceived dependency on Britain for defence of the colonies, and the desire to ensure that the federation proposal did get up. The early supporters of federation also looked at the American model, but sought something uniquely Australian.
In 1998 we had a constitutional convention assembled to draw up a proposal to put to the Australian people. This they did, and a referendum was held in 1999. The republican side of the debate was divided on the question of direct election of the proposed president, and eventually the convention chose a model that provided for the parliament to choose the president. The opinion polls before the referendum suggested that a direct election model might have been accepted by the Australian people. The referendum was defeated.
An import point to consider with the republic is that it is not a blood-in-the-streets issue. None of us will end up dead if we become a republic, and none will if we don’t. This means considerable effort of leadership and persuasion will be needed to have a referendum approved by the voters. At the time of the 1999 referendum, the Prime Minister, John Howard, was opposed to the republic, and this was fatal to the proposal. At the very least, both major parties must support the proposal.
It is, however, more difficult than just getting both major political parties to agree to the referendum proposal. In the 1980s, a referendum proposal submitted by the Hawke government was supported by the opposition. The referendum was defeated. The people saw this as an issue where they simply did not trust the politicians. This lack of trust of our political leaders has long been part of the Australian character, and I would suggest it is a good attitude for the people to have. We are less likely than most to have our political system hijacked by an extremist demagogue. This attitude, together with the double majority required, makes even worthwhile reforms difficult to get up. Difficult that is, not impossible.
I have long believed that true leaders must take the people with them. It is not good enough, certainly not in the Australian democracy, for I leader to simply say “I know best”. We will break your heart if that is all you do. This is where persuasion comes in; persuasion that is, not spin. Talk down to us and we will agree with everything you say and then vote for the other bloke!
The highest “no” votes in the 1999 referendum were in the less populous states, with Queensland scoring a quite large 60% vote for “no”. The problem in part was the perceived values of the republicans. Regional Australia does not trust the smooth talking elites of the terrible triangle (Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne). The task is to convince more Australians to take ownership of the republic, and this will be not be easy. Showing a little humility and a little less of the messianic mission would seem to be a good start for the pro-republicans.
A part of the problem of persuading the majority to support the switch is the genuine respect and affection felt for the present monarch. The Queen is seen to have been doing an extraordinarily good job in an extremely difficult world. The glib jibes about the younger members of the royal family simply won’t remove these feelings. So long as the Queen remains on the throne, the rest do not matter. As for the younger ones, who is bonking whom in merry old England has no constitutional significance for Australia.
History tells us that the chance of a referendum being successful is quite remote. The outstanding success story is the referendum of 1967, which dealt with the treatment of indigenous Australians. This was a situation where bi-partisan support and a compelling moral case ensured a successful result.
It seems unlikely that a constitutional change to a republic will ever be approved. The circumstances for either the country or the monarchy would have to be radically different. Such circumstances are nowhere in sight at the moment.
| 21 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
