Australian republicanismAustralian republicanism is a movement within Australia to replace the existing constitutional monarchy with a republic. This would sever the historical ties with the British monarchy.
HistoricalAustralian history had also been marked by a few clashes between the parliament and the existing constitutional monarchy, notably during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 in which the Queen's representative, the Governor General, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. This particular incident raised serious questions about the value of maintaining a supposedly "symbolic" office that still possessed many key, and potentially dangerous, political powers.ConstitutionalIn a republican Australia, it was proposed that the Governor General and Monarch would be replaced by one office, the President of the Commonwealth of Australia. The President could be appointed by the Australian Parliament to a fixed term. Though he would retain the "emergency" powers of the Governor General, he would now actually have a mandate to use them. Supporters of a parliamentary appointment model also claimed that, contrary to monarchist views, the stability of Australia's liberal democracy would not be imperiled and would in fact be enhanced by such a change, because the Prime Minister, whilst retaining the ability to sack the (effective) head of State, could not alone choose their replacement and would thus have no incentive to do so. Additionally, wider involvement in the choice would ensure that the backgrounds of the appointees would be more thoroughly scrutinized.A republic by stealth?There were already moves to remove references to the monarchy from various institutions. For example, in 1993, references to the Queen were removed from the Oath of Citizenship sworn by naturalised Australians, who would now swear allegiance to the country and its people 'whose democratic beliefs I share and whose laws I shall obey'. The state of Queensland deleted all references to the monarchy from its legislation, with new laws being enacted by its Parliament, not the Queen, and 'binding on the State of Queensland', not the Crown. Barristers in New South Wales were no longer appointed 'Queen's Counsel' (QC), but 'Senior Counsel' (SC), as in republics like Ireland and South Africa. Institutions in Australia could no longer apply to have 'Royal' in their title, and the awarding of British honours to Australian citizens was finally discontinued. Many monarchists condemned these as being moves to a 'republic by stealth'.The 1999 ReferendumFor years, opinion polls had clearly suggested that the majority of the electorate favoured changing the constitution, but the November 1999 republican referendum showed that the polls were wrong and was soundly defeated. There were two main reasons for this. Firstly, Australians, who have enjoyed uninterrupted social and political stability under a constitutional monarchy, have traditionally been cautious about proposed constitutional change: only 8 out of 43 referenda since 1909 have been approved by a majority of voters in a majority of states (as they must be to succeed). In Sir Robert Menzies' words, "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."The Divisions Among the ElectorateSecond, public opinion was not (and still is not) divided in a simple yes/no manner. The major opinion groups were:\n* Traditional royalists who held their beliefs largely on sentimental attachment to the monarchy, in part based on traditional associations with the United Kingdom and a personal identification with Elizabeth II and her family. Many were older or from rural rather than urban areas.\n* Pragmatic royalists who maintained that, whatever the argued weaknesses of the current system, it also had many strengths. The view of this group was that constitutional monarchy provides the basis for stable democratic government, with the sovreign's representative acting as an impartial, non-political "umpire" of the political process. Many claimed that republican government would lead to instability or even dictatorship and result in an undesirable politicisation of the office of head of state.\n* Minimal change republicans who aimed to replace the monarch with an appointed Australian head of state, but otherwise maintain the current system as unchanged as possible. \n* Moderate change republicans who aimed to replace the monarch with an elected head of state.\n* Radical republicans, who saw the minimal change option as purely cosmetic, and desired comprehensive revision to the current Westminister-based system. This was easily the smallest major group, but prominent in the debate.\n* The Uncommitted - as in all electorates, a large proportion of the electorate remained unattached to either side. (Uncommitted 'swinging voters' are often the decisive force in shaping referenda results and election outcomes in democracies worldwide.)Alternative Methods for Selecting a President
Why the Referendum was DefeatedOn the face of things, with republicans of one form or another in the clear majority, it might have been expected that the republican referendum would pass comfortably. However, few mainstream republicans were wholly agreed about the proposed mechanisms for replacing the monarch with either an appointed head of state (which was widely criticised as being undemocratic), or with an elected head of state (which was widely criticised as moving Australia away from the proven Westminster System toward an American-style presidential system). The former model (with an appointed head) was the one endorsed by the constitutional convention and put forward at the referendum. It was broadly supported by both minimal-change and moderate republicans, including almost all Labor and a majority of conservative politicians, and opposed by royalists of both kinds (except to the extent that most voted for it to be the model recommended by the constitutional convention, exactly because they saw it to be the least likely model to succeed), and the radical republicans (who reasoned that a simple cosmetic removal of the monarchy would make more far-reaching and substantial changes impossible).The 'Yes' sideThe "yes" campaign was divided in detail but nevertheless managed to present a fairly united and coherent message, and was notable for unlikely alliances between traditional opponents - former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser gave joint statements, for example. Many other prominent Australians also endorsed the yes vote - which, however, led to claims that the movement was "elitist" in sentiment and led by politicans rather than people. Viewing the case for a republic as fairly self-evident and broadly supported by the Australian populace, the "yes" campaign failed to overcome the scepticism that the electorate normally attaches to constitutional change within Australia.The 'No' sideThe organised "No" campaign was a mixture of monarchist groups such as Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Monarchist League, as well as a wide variety of radical republicans dissatisfied with the specific model on offer at the referendum. Headed by Kerry Jones of ACM, the "no" campaign was unashamedly populist, decrying those who supported the republican push as "elites", and skillfully managing to appeal both to those apprehensive about the change on one hand, and those feeling the model didn't go far enough on the other. The common elements within the no campaign were the view that the model proposed was undemocratic and would lead to a "politician's republic". No campaigners called for further consultation, while remaining non-specific on what steps were needed to ensure this.Who Voted HowThe result of the poll was clear: roughly 55% of the nation voted "no" and in only one territory, the ACT, was there a "yes" majority. This was broadly as expected: the real surprise was the distribution of the votes. As expected, traditionally conservative states and rural areas were strongholds for the a constitutional monarchy; but wealthy city electorates mostly voted "yes", and blue-ribbon Labor seats in working-class suburbs voted "no". The outcome was met with angst by the republicans. Some, notably Australian Republican Movement president Malcolm Turnbull, spoke bitterly in the aftermath, blaming Prime Minister Howard in particular for their defeat. Most monarchists were pleased that, in their view, common sense had prevailed. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy leader Kerry Jones, for example, called for citizens to accept it and go forward "as a united nation". Despite the hopes of radical republicans such as Phil Cleary, the referendum defeat was generally viewed as a setback for the republican cause and no further referenda on the subject were mooted by the Howard government.The Unsolved IssueRepublicans expect that a further referendum will take place eventually, although public interest in such a move has faded away in the years since the referendum was defeated. The media have conducted and interpreted a number of opinion polls to suggest that a majority of Australians favour some form of republic. In any case, it appears certain that the debate will not really begin in earnest again until John Howard leaves office. The Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham has affirmed that should Labor win the 2004 election, his government would hold a series of plebiscites to resolve the issue. See also: Republic Advisory Committee, Constitutional law, Australian Constitutional History \nSee also: Queen of AustraliaExternal links
|
||
"Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - Mark Twain (1835-1910) |
