Many now view the monarchy as an antiquated, irrelevant institution that will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history. Iconoclasm may be tempting to some, but I believe we should think twice before we amputate a limb of our national heritage and rewrite the Constitution.

I say this because Australia owes its very birth as a nation to the patronage of the British Crown and the hard work of its loyal agents, after whom our major cities are named. It is no coincidence our founding documents begin, “George the Third, by the grace of God, King of Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith”. The British connection is not some incidental detail in Australian history. It’s Australia’s foundation, the source of its values, political system and jurisprudence, language, culture and people. The founding words of the Preamble to the Constitution – “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown” – are a testament to that legacy, not an embarrassing slip of the tongue to be rubbed out and forgotten, belittled by future generations.

Republicanism stands for repudiating the very foundations on which this country has been built in favour of, well, they can’t really tell us because they haven’t agreed on a model and the last one they gave us was a dud. At the present time, it’s a contest between an awe-inspiring 1100-year-old institution without which this country wouldn’t exist and “oh, we’ll figure something out”.

You will observe that other countries do not naturally forget their foundations and dump their heritage at some point. Progressive countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are all constitutional monarchies. This is not because they are stuck in the middle ages. They value their heritage and consider it would be a pity to unnecessarily put an end to it. The Thais, the Japanese, even the Maoris, have kept their traditional monarchies. Why? It’s their tradition and they don’t want to lose it.

When monarchies are abolished, typically a violent phenomenon, it is usually as a consequence of oppression or outside interference. Thus the unpopular King of France was guillotined and the revered Kaiser of Germany was forced to abdicate by the Entente powers at the end of WW1. The hapless Tsar of Russia abdicated only to be shot against a wall with his entire family. Nepal is a more recent example of abolition induced by oppression. Proud nations with stable and reliable government do not turn against their past and uproot their own foundations. Our Queen is no tyrant nor is she being forced to abdicate by a foreign power. Her Majesty is a symbol of our provenance and heritage, like our flag. Would you throw away the flag because it includes the Union Jack? Most people wouldn’t because, well, because it’s our flag. This is the flag that flew over the trenches of Gallipolli and the fortifications of Tobruk; this is the flag we have hoisted with pride for over a hundred years and there is no way we’re going to ditch it. So what if the Union Jack is part of it? In fact, it’s there for a very good reason. It’s there because that’s where the country came from.

You wouldn’t ditch the flag because of the British connection but you would ditch an institution that both predates the flag and can boast a greater practical contribution to Australia? The monarchy is like the Union Jack in the flag: it’s there for a good reason and it’s not a reason to dump it.

Many republicans justify the abandonment of our heritage with the complaint that our Constitution gives extensive powers to an octogenarian who lives in England. Surely, a mature, confident nation must run its own affairs. I have good news for you. The truth is that under our Constitution the powers of the head of state are exercisable by an Australian, namely the Governor-General. The Queen cannot exercise these powers even when she is in Australia, nor can she overrule the exercise of executive power by the Governor-General. When the Queen was urged, during the constitutional crisis of 1975, to reverse the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, the reply from Buckingham Palace was that the Queen lacked the constitutional capacity to countermand the Governor-General: “the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General… The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General.”

Even the Queen’s right to appoint or dismiss the Governor-General is hollow because it is done on the advice of the Prime Minister. In effect, it is the PM who appoints or dismisses the Governor-General. And so, the Constitution in its present form bestows all executive power on an Australian whose decisions are not reviewable by a person who is not Australian. The republican argument about independence founders on the Constitution it attacks.

The upshot is that our constitutional monarchy is a brilliant compromise between tradition and modernity, heritage and independence, past and present. We can have all the prestige of monarchy and complete political freedom at the same time. We can honour our history without letting the past curtail our present independence. Not in vain did Justice Kirby of the High Court describe Australia as a “crowned republic”. It is the best of both worlds. Let’s keep that way.

Vish,

I’m not sure I understand why, in your opinion, “constitutional monarchy is in essence an oxymoron”. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarchy is bound by the constitution. It is not above the law. The Governor-General’s website states (vicariously through former Commonwealth Solicitor-General Sir Maurice Byers QC) that “[t]he Constitution binds the Crown”. I fail to see the inherent contradiction in that sentence.

I must take issue with your assertion that Australia can’t be a real democracy until we have an elected head of state. Firstly, not all positions of power in a democracy are – or should be – elected. Judges, who wield a lot of power (much more than the Queen in fact), are unelected. In the United States, the only member of the executive branch of government who is elected is the president. Everyone else, including the secretary of state, who is one of the most powerful people in the world, is unelected. As has been pointed out, many countries have a ceremonious, unelected head of state. If we apply your definition of democracy, I doubt we will find a single democracy in the whole world.

Secondly, I think there is a very good reason why some countries have opted for an unelected (or at least non-popularly elected) head of state. Any elected representative is perforce a politician. It can be argued that while effective government clearly lies with elected representatives, symbolic roles should not be tainted with party politics. This allows the head of state to be above “petty politics”, which is adversarial and divisive in nature. He or she thus personifies a supreme, unifying office that everyone can identify with, regardless of political divisions.

As we know, the Queen is very careful never to politicise her office. This is one of the great strengths of the monarchy. Imagine what would happen if the Queen gave a speech supporting John Howard or Kevin Rudd before the last election. That would have greatly compromised her image and probably doomed the monarchy in Australia. I don’t think we want just another pollie as head of state.

Thirdly, with three levels of government consisting of nine parliaments (only three of which are not bicameral) and 694 local government areas representing a population of just 21 million, the one thing we don’t need more of in Australia is politicians.

You also complain that the Queen “does nothing” (which, to my mind, is just not true) and has no power (that’s because the Governor-General has these powers as her representative). What powers would you give to an elected head of state? How will these powers be exercised vis-a-vis the elected government, Parliament and the courts? You suggest that these powers should be “parliamentary or judicial”. What parliamentary or judicial powers would you give to an elected head of state? These issues must be carefully considered before we change our system of government - a system that has sustained one of the most stable democracies in the world.

I hope this post clarifies my position and addresses your concerns.

Mike has unearthed this ad in which former PM Bob Hawke tries to convince us that we need an Australian head of state. It was produced and screened in the lead up to the 1999 referendum on the republic.

I would say in reply that there is great uncertainty as to whether our head of state is the Queen or the Governor-General (who is indisputably Australian). There is at least one High Court case that supports the latter interpretation. This judgment described the Governor of a state (and by extension the Governor-General) as “the officiating Constitutional Head of the State”.

The uncertainty exists mainly because, as I explained in my opening post, the Queen is unable to exercise executive power under the Constitution - only the Governor-General can.

Can we have a head of state who can’t exercise the powers of a head of state? Perhaps, but the bottom line is that even if the Queen is the de jure head of state, the Governor-General, who is Australian, is the person only person who can act as Australia’s head of state. That is, the GG is the de facto or real head of state.

And so, even if the republican head of state argument survives this uncertainty, it is very much vitiated by the fact that only an Australian can actually fulfill the role of head of state. I doubt this diminished argument can outweigh all the benefits of retaining the monarchy.

Not to mention the fact that this ambiguity as to our de jure and de facto head of state means that we are enjoying the best of both worlds. We can retain the monarchy and have an Australian head of state at the same time. If we abolish the monarchy, as Hawke suggests, we will lose all the benefits of monarchy and gain something we sort of had anyway.

Will,

I’m glad you raised the dismissal. Republicans like to bring it up. I believe it doesn’t actually help their cause - or at least not as much as they think.

First, the dismissal had nothing to do with the Queen (nor could it - as I explained in my opening post). It had everything to do with an Australian acting as a head of state. Isn’t that what republicans want - an Australian head of state? If the complaint is that the Governor-General is unelected, well, just make the office an elected one or constrain its powers. There is no need to abolish the monarchy for that.

(As I’ve said above, I think it would be a mistake to politicise the office. I’m just trying to show that the dismissal argument has nothing to do with the Queen)

Second, you say sarcastically that “Democracy was had all round”. One tiny detail about the dismissal that republicans (and leftists in general) like to omit is that Governor-General Kerr appointed Malcolm Fraser on the condition that he call a double-dissolution election. I can’t think of a more democratic thing to do than to call an all-out election. That election was held a month later in December 1975. Whitlam suffered the gravest electoral defeat in Australian history. He was again defeated in 1977. We can argue about the merits of Kerr’s decision until the cows come home but the one thing you can’t say about the dismissal is that the people didn’t have their say. So yes, democracy was had all round.

The latter part of your post suggests that you do not mind heaping insults on an entire population. For example, “it is in the Australian tradition to kidnap and steal Indigenous people”. We can argue about the facts behind the Stolen Generation elsewhere but there is a broader point here. You have identified yourself repeatedly as a Muslim. Is it the Muslim tradition to explode in public places? Would you consider that a fair debating point?

The rationale behind Australia’s long-held alliances and participation in foreign wars is once again a different topic that has little to no relevance here.

I never said every tradition was sacrosanct. Likewise, not every tradition has to be spitefully denigrated and trashed.

Speaking of colonial wars, why does a person with your convictions continue to dispossess Aborigines by living on their land? Shouldn’t you return to wherever your ancestors came from or at the very least give back the land?

As for the Queen’s symbolism, I have explained at length why I believe that the combination of an Australian GG and the Queen is the best of both worlds in practical as well as symbolic terms. It is an harmonious co-existence of past and present, heritage and independence, where we came from and what we are.

down_in_flames,

I don’t believe the monarchy is about the superiority of the “old country”, particularly since the monarchy does not make the old country superior. Australia is in no way subordinate to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. This is the combined effect of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 (ratified by Australia in 1942 and backdated to 1939) and the Australia Acts of 1986. The monarchy is about common roots and shared values. This commonality is indisputable. As I argued in my initial post, this includes Australia’s foundation, the source of its values, political system and jurisprudence, language, culture and people. While I readily agree with you that Australia is no longer a small penal settlement (so yes, things have changed), these shared characteristics have not changed – nor should they. The monarchy has also changed, like every society or institution on Earth. Indeed, its capacity to change with the times while retaining its age-old symbolism is the reason it has survived through the ages. This is really what my argument is all about. You can have change and tradition at the same time. Ironically, the monarchy is a perfect example of this. The fact of change in human history is not something which I regard as damning to my argument.

At the risk of being tedious, I will relate a story which I find illustrative. The following is an excerpt from visitbritain.com.au:

“The Ceremony of the Keys is the traditional locking-up of the Tower of London. It’s happened every night without fail for at least 700 years. Don’t miss your chance to watch this fascinating tradition on your trip to Britain.

Every night, at exactly 21:53, the Chief Yeoman Warder of the Tower emerges from the Byward Tower wearing his long red coat and Tudor bonnet and carrying a candle lantern and the Queen’s Keys. The Chief Yeoman Warder then meets his military escort (members of the Tower of London Guard), and together they lock the main gates of the Tower. As they pass, all of the Tower’s guards salute the Keys. The Chief Yeoman Warder and his escort then retrace their steps, and lock the great oak gates of the Middle and Byward Towers on the way. On the way towards Traitor’s Gate, a guard in the shadows of the Bloody Tower stops them:

‘Halt, who comes there?’ he calls
‘The keys!’ answers the Chief Yeoman Warder
‘Whose keys?’
‘Queen Elizabeth’s keys’
‘Pass Queen Elizabeth’s keys. All’s well.’ replies the guard.

After this, the group make their way through the Bloody Tower Archway, and stop at the bottom of the Broadwalk steps. On the top of the stairs, under the command of their Officer, the Tower Guard present arms. The Chief Yeoman Warder then steps forward, raises his Tudor bonnet high in the air, and calls ‘God preserve Queen Elizabeth!’. The Guard answers ‘Amen’ exactly as the clock strikes 22:00, and the Duty Drummer plays the Last Post on his bugle. To end the ceremony, the Chief Yeoman Warder takes the keys to the Queen’s House, and the Guard is dismissed.”

It continues:

“The only time the ceremony has been interrupted in the last 700 years was during the Second World War. During an air raid, bombs fell onto the old Victorian guardroom as the Chief Yeoman Warder and his escort were coming through the Bloody Archway. The shock and the noise of the bombs sent the group flying to the floor, but they stood up, dusted themselves down, and carried on.

The Tower holds a letter from the Officer of the Guard apologising to King George VI that the ceremony was late, along with a reply from the King which says that the Officer is not to be punished as the delay was due to enemy action.”

So what, I ask, is the point of continuing this old ritual? What is the point of the funny costumes and the punctuality and that comically theatrical exchange? I think we all know. I also think most of us would find it to be quite an amazing thing. How many of us would say to the Yeoman Warders, “Tonight you don’t go out”? To say that this ceremony is but “a remnant of an old school of leadership where the rights of kings and queens was guaranteed through heavenly mandate” is in my opinion a petty criticism that woefully misses the point. Yes, we have changed a great deal since the Yeoman Warders first performed this ceremony some 700 years ago. Does this mean that by allowing the ritual to survive we adhere to or approve of medieval values? C’mon, mate. We just value our tradition like any other sensible nation.

Yes, the monarchy is a symbol, as you say, but what a powerful, meaningful symbol it is. Whether it’s as significant as Magna Carta or simply awe-inspiring like standing at Westminster Abbey staring at the wooden Coronation Chair that has been used to crown every anointed sovereign since 1307 (except Mary I and Mary II), the monarchy is a symbol like no other. It makes us part of something truly great, something of which Australia really has been a part. I just can’t understand this republican instinct of historical vandalism. And in favour of what? A dull republic? A boring republic under which we would have a governor-general by another name and nothing else to give it significance?

What does republicanism offer? What we already possess in the governor-general? Well, we have that. A ceremonious head of state is bound to be a largely symbolic office. If we must fill a symbolic role, we might as well get a powerful, meaningful symbol imbued with historical relevance. For this purpose, the monarchy has no rival.

You raised some other points. I don’t understand your comment that “The fact that the GG is an Australian does not make him any more legitimate in holding the powers given to him or her by our constitution.” Are you arguing the Constitution itself is illegitimate? Should the Constitution confer all executive power on a Bulgarian? Maybe I just misunderstand you. I have a hunch as to what you alluded to in your comment about tyranny but I’ll respond to it if and when it’s actually argued.

As for your comment about the flag, the flag is our own.

I still don’t understand how you so neatly reconcile your moral posturing on the evils of colonialism and your enjoyment of the same. In my last comment, I asked you this:

“Why does a person with your convictions continue to dispossess Aborigines by living on their land? Shouldn’t you return to wherever your ancestors came from or at the very least give back the land?”

To which you replied:

“The people that lived in the land I live upon now are dead, so is their remaining descendants and most surviving relatives…”

Evidently you have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the subject and concluded that, alas, there is no surviving Aborigine to whom you can give back the land. Firstly, if I could produce such an individual or individuals, would you surrender your land to them? Secondly, would you kindly provide the name of your suburb so I can assist you in locating said Aborigines? Native title, I am reliably informed, is communal and so, fortunately, we only need to find the right tribe. I trust you won’t raise that unjust legalistic objection that native title was extinguished for it was extinguished by colonialism.

You asked me “what does the Queen symbolise other than historical, exploitative colonialism?” I actually answered your question in my first post and again later but, speaking of “historical, exploitative colonialism”, why not start closer to home – your home? The Queen does not live on stolen Aboriginal land and refuse to give it back on spurious grounds, you know. Practice what you preach or don’t preach.

Always a pleasure, mate. Hope to hear from you soon.

Vish,

It’s good to have you back. I’ll respond to your arguments one by one.

You say: “The judiciary in Australia is in essence elected. The judges on the High Court are chosen by the prime minister, which would dismiss your argument that the judiciary is not elected.”

An elected office is one that is chosen by the people and accountable to the people for its day to day operation. Judges are not elected by the people and are not accountable to the people. We can kick pollies out of office if we don’t like their decisions. We can’t kick judges out of office if we disapprove of their decisions. Judges are appointed and unaccountable. Accountability is arguably the most important aspect of holding elected office; so important that even you emphasise it: “we need an elected head of state, that can be held accountable to the Australian public”. That government-appointed judges may or may not be partial or sympathetic to the government’s ideology does not render them elected. Indeed they stay on the bench when the government falls, to the great annoyance of its successor. Your definition of elected office whereby every appointee of an elected person is by extension essentially elected seems to overlook and trivialise the whole distinction between an appointment and an election. You’ll find that the prime minister and his ministers appoint a hell of a lot of people and these are not regarded (arguably even by you) as elected. Now I can’t prevent you from subscribing to an extremely broad definition of elected office (it’s largely semantic anyway) but please accept that your definition is really quite exceptional and at odds with common usage. If I wrote in my public law exam that members of the judiciary were elected, I would be marked wrong.

Importantly, even if we do accept your exceptional definition of elected office, it doesn’t really matter. I was making the following broad point: “I must take issue with your assertion that Australia can’t be a real democracy until we have an elected head of state. Firstly, not all positions of power in a democracy are – or should be – elected. Judges, who wield a lot of power (much more than the Queen in fact), are unelected.” So even if judges are deemed elected, it is still the case that not all positions of power in a democracy are – or should be – elected. In fact, as we shall shortly see, you actually agree with me on that point. That was my whole point and so it remains.

You say: “a republic does not a democracy make. China which I’m sure you’ll agree with me is not a democracy even though it is the ‘People’s Republic of China’…” My friend, I never contended that a republic makes a democracy and nowhere do I rely on such an assertion. If anything, that’s what you seemed to be arguing (“We need to have an elected head of state, only then can we claim to be real democratic country”). At any rate, why would I say that republic equals democracy if I oppose the republic? In short, I agree with you completely: this monarchy/republic debate is not about whether Australia is a democracy or not.

You go on say in the same context by way of illustration: “Taking another nation, India for example, the people vote for all ministers and the prime minister, however they do not vote for their president who holds token power rather like the last republic suggested for Australia (the republican referendum).”

Well, with all due respect, I believe you conclusively disposed of your initial argument that “We need to have an elected head of state, only then can we claim to be real democratic country”. India is a democracy whose citizens do not vote for, i.e. do not elect, the head of state. Can you think of another splendid democracy around the Indian Ocean where the people don’t vote for the head of state? Once again, I agree with you all wholeheartedly that we don’t need to vote for a head of state to be a “real democracy”.

Next, you quote s 1 of the Constitution to show that the Queen, not the GG, is our head of state. This is a truly vexed issue. I agree with you that s 1 seems to suggest that (although it does not conclusively establish that, as you appear to believe). On the other hand, by virtue of the operation of s 61, only the GG can actually exercise the executive powers a head of state would need to have. This is a fact that has been acknowledged by the Commonwealth since the late 80’s and which necessitated the revocation of previous letters patent and the issuance of new ones. The role of the GG as the sole repository of supreme executive power is reinforced by the subsequent sections. All the executive powers conferred by ss 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70 including notably the command of the armed forces and the power to appoint and dismiss ministers (and prime ministers), are vested personally in the GG, not the Queen. The upshot of all this is that it is extremely problematic for those who believe the Queen is the head of state to regard as head of state the person who cannot exercise any of the powers a head of state would need to exercise. The assertion is that the head of state is not the person who exercises the powers of head of state (the GG) but the person who can’t (the Queen). As I said above, there is High Court authority for proposition that the GG is the head of state.

Still, I readily accept that this is a vexed, controversial and ultimately ambiguous issue. At the end of the day, there is no clear answer because the constitutional situation is ambiguous. At the risk of being indulgent, I shall repeat what I said on this topic in a previous post:

“Can we have a head of state who can’t exercise the powers of a head of state? Perhaps, but the bottom line is that even if the Queen is the de jure head of state, the Governor-General, who is Australian, is the person only person who can act as Australia’s head of state. That is, the GG is the de facto or real head of state.

And so, even if the republican head of state argument survives this uncertainty, it is very much vitiated by the fact that only an Australian can actually fulfill the role of head of state. I doubt this diminished argument can outweigh all the benefits of retaining the monarchy.”

I still believe this to be the correct resolution of this issue.

You also say in this context: “in recent years the queen has played almost no role in Australian governance. The G.G’s office has been a rubber stamp to all laws passed in both houses. That is another reason why we need an Australian head of state.”

I would say that’s a reason why we already have an Australian head of state for all intents and purposes and the whole republican project is thus quite futile. The best prize a republic can offer is an Australian head of state – something we already have for all intents and purposes (even according to you).

In response to my argument that “with three levels of government consisting of nine parliaments (only three of which are not bicameral) and 694 local government areas representing a population of just 21 million, the one thing we don’t need more of in Australia is politicians“, you said: “I’m happy that you’ve pointed out the large amount of governance in Australia, in fact many former state politicians have begun asking for the ending of the state as a political level. However I disagree with both you and these politicians…” You go on to explain why you hold this position. I don’t share your view of the advantages of waste and duplication but I really don’t want to turn this into a disquisition on federalism. This argument is really not a pillar of my case and for present purposes I won’t insist on it. Let’s agree to disagree.

I asked you “What powers would you give to an elected head of state?” to which you responded as follows: “Personally I’ve always favoured a minimalist system with the queen being replaced by an elected president, so any powers that the G.G. has, so would a new president.”

I’m glad you are fond of the minimalist model. If I had to choose one I would certainly it because it most resembles the constitutional monarchy we currently have. In fact, this is precisely the point I made above. The republican model is really quite redundant in what it offers. It consists in changing the name of the office from GG to President which is a complete superfluity. They want to give us something we already have without compensating us for what we lose in the monarchy. A republic will simply rob the highest office in the land of all symbolism and significance without adding anything. If we keep the monarchy, we can enjoy both worlds: we have everything the republicans offer plus everything the monarchists offer. I guess this argument won’t impress those who simply hate the monarchy and for whom its overthrow is a prize in itself. But that’s how I see it, anyway.

You say: “Again suggesting that Britain is one of the oldest stablest democracies in the world is incorrect.” I actually spoke of Australia, not of Britain when I said “a system that has sustained one of the most stable democracies in the world.” But since you raised Britain, I shall endeavour to show how it, too, demonstrates my point about stability.

Historians usually see the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (a bloodless coup, by the way) as the turning point – the birth of constitutional monarchy in Britain, arguably in the world. True, Britain was a hardly a democracy in today’s terms back in 1688, but constitutionally speaking it was the last important step towards obtaining the constitutional model we have in place. Progressively, the monarchs retreated to a largely symbolic role while the country was actually run by parliament and the government, as it is now. Indeed, since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (and actually before that year because it was a bloodless coup), no British government has been overthrown by force (which is a good indicator of stability and quite an achievement in itself for any country that has been around for that long).

By contrast, we can consider the total chaos and horrendous bloodbath that followed the abolition of the French and Russian monarchies, both replaced by bloodthirsty, totalitarian regimes much worse than themselves. Let’s look at the French example more closely. In 1792, the French monarchy was violently overthrown (riots, barricades, civil strife, Frenchman killing Frenchman, bloodshed…) and the First Republic was declared. The Reign of Terror ensued during which the whole country was terrorised as rival groups, one more extremist than the other, vied for power, killing each other in the streets, guillotining each other’s leaders, and exposing the country to foreign invasion by the Austrians. The Reign of Terror by the “Committee of Public Safety” consumed itself after a year or so but the anarchy and all out war continued for years until a talented general by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte exploited the political vacuum and chaos, appointed himself virtual dictator (actually crowning himself) and founded the First French Empire. Napoleon’s accession unleashed a wave of European wars (the Napoleonic Wars) that swept Europe from Lisbon in the West to Moscow in the East, led to death, starvation and dispossession of millions of people all over Europe and lasted 12 years. Interestingly, the war ended in 1815 with the aid of British intervention. The First Empire fell and the old Bourbon monarchy was restored in its stead. Some years later the Bourbon monarchy fell a second time (riots, barricades, civil strife, Frenchman killing Frenchman, bloodshed…) and another monarchy of the Orleanist line took power (the July Monarchy of Louis-Phillippe). That monarchy fell too (riots, barricades, civil strife, Frenchman killing Frenchman, bloodshed…) and the Second Republic was declared in 1848. The Second Republic failed and duly fell only 3 years later (riots, barricades, civil strife, Frenchman killing Frenchman, bloodshed…) to be replaced with the Second Empire of Napoleon III. That turned out to be a quite despotic regime. It didn’t last too long – courtesy of Herr Bismarck – and fell in 1870, whereupon the Third Republic was declared. The Third Republic gave way to the Fourth Republic (the odious Vichy regime intervening). The Fourth Republic also (characteristically) failed after only 18 years and now we’re to up to the Fifth French Republic. So since Britain adopted constitutional monarchy, France had three monarchies, two empires and five republics and a hell of a lot of bloodshed, much of it internal. All that time, Britain had a single constitutional model – the good old constitutional monarchy – and not one government was violently overthrown. Elected governments under the Crown have come and gone peacefully – to this day. That’s what I mean by political stability. Since 1688 Britain has truly been an island of political stability. I am not saying that it’s all due to its constitutional model but I believe the facts and the comparison reflect favourably on the stability of constitutional monarchies.

You say, “Therefore Australia as republic could be considered even stabler than the British system.” In addition to what I said above, I will also say that “Australia as republic” cannot be considered anything because it has never existed. You can’t compare its performance with that of other forms of governance – it never performed. In any event, you have not produced any evidence to the effect that republics as a rule are more stable than constitutional monarchies so I can’t see why you would say such a thing.

You say that my tradition argument founders on the fact that the original convicts had no love for the queen. For the record, it was a king (George III) but that’s of no importance. Firstly, we don’t know for sure that the convicts were republicans at heart. Remember that historically speaking the advocacy of republicanism was largely a hobby-horse of the educated bourgeoisie – the intelligentsia – not the lower classes of society who mostly harboured a distant awe and reverence for king and country. Even when they rose up in rebellion, they seldom sought the outright overthrow or execution of the king – that was usually the domain of middle-class intellectuals. Also remember that at that time it was very often that the king commuted the sentences of convicts from death by hanging to transportation. Many, if not most, of the convicts banished to Australia owed their lives to the king’s mercy. Now, of course we cannot know whether the first convicts were republicans at heart but I really don’t think it matters that much. I have to confess I find it a strange argument. We can’t ignore the free settlers and there can be no doubt that Australia’s tradition is intertwined with that of Britain. Australia owes its existence to Britain. The people who built its foundations were British and saw themselves as serving Britain. As I said in my opening post, the British connection is not some incidental detail in Australian history. It’s Australia’s foundation, the source of its values, political system and jurisprudence, language, culture and people. At first, the colony was just an integral part of Britain and naturally retained the monarchy. Even when independence was gradually and peacefully obtained, the overwhelming majority of Australians identified with Britain and were proud to be part of what was then the greatest power on Earth, the British Empire. This tradition lives on in our governing institutions, our law, our language etc. This country grew out of Britain and peacefully so. That some prisoners allegedly resented their punishment doesn’t change the origin of this country and the enduring influence of this tradition. Constitutional monarchy is the traditional form of governance because, well, that’s what we’ve always had. It’s the tradition.

As for Aborigines not supporting the monarchy, well, I presume they wouldn’t have supported an Australian republic either… When they build a country, they can decide who governs it.

In conclusion, you say that “Australia should become a republic to show our true heritage”. I profoundly but respectfully disagree. Our true heritage is the one brought here by a handful of Britons who started building – from scratch – the greatest country in the world. It is their country and their values and their law and their system of governance that people from all over the world have flocked to. I am one of these people and I know what and whom to respect. If I settled in another country, I would respect its tradition and its founders.

James Allan in The Australian (18/3/09):

“A decade or so ago there was a study from Yale University that compared how newly democratised countries did based on whether they opted for a Westminster parliamentary system or a presidential system along the lines of the US or France. The evidence was that parliamentary systems worked better.

There are a few rare times when the governor-general has real power. Constitutional lawyers like to call the power the GG has in these situations “reserve powers”…

Twice during the past century a governor-general in the Commonwealth exercised their judgment using the reserve powers: once in Canada in the 1920s and here in Australia in the ’70s. In both instances the electorate was soon made the judge of the situation. Elections were held.

The reserve powers really relate to the question of just when to call an election. Sometimes this can be a heated question. It can be a political question. It is in no way obvious that leaving that decision to a party-political, elected person is a better option than leaving it to a ribbon-cutting, hospital ward visiting person who has no legitimacy at all and who will be criticised by half the population whatever they do.

First off, most of the world would gnaw off their right arms to live in a country where the worst thing you could say is that someone called an election too early. Second, the system works only if indeed the governor-general is seen to be acting (rightly or wrongly) for non-party political reasons. Thank goodness John Kerr was a Labor appointee is another way to make the point.

So the danger of having a governor-general who involves themselves in party-political activities or is seen to have party-political views is that, should one of these rare situations arise in future, they will be widely seen as a party hack, whether warranted or not. Come a hung parliament with no clear winner, no one will treat them as an honest broker. They will have forfeited their ribbon-cutter status and won’t have a democratic mandate. It will be the worst of both worlds.”