The Queen in England died this month. After a pause in all democratic activities and debate (in parliaments and public) to mourn the loss, and whilst individuals were counselled not to disregard the solemnity of the time, the support for monarchy and support for an Australian republic began to manifest itself.
It seems that both arguments have been guided by ships of fools. The monarchy itself has the defects, so far as the Australian polity is concerned, of being only of historical relevance, being distant both geographically and intellectually, run by 'natural selection' - whomever is on top of the pile/castle at the time (this time it is King Charles III, next it might be his eldest son William, but it could have been Randy Andy, or the American Depressed Harry)- depending on how the dice fall on the day.
The republic argument has been used for political purpose and tainted by the captain of the team at the time being other than universally accepted as an objective advocate. We have had the narcissistic Malcolm Turnbull, and similarly enthusiastically self interested Peter Fitzsimons.
But the debate is more truly and healthily being run in the streets, and by the modern day pamphleteers.
Recently our own Dickie McCure re-entered the fray with his epistle to the Mercury of 15 Sept (mid mourning), rebuffed by Phil Kimber 24 Sept, and now the two letters have elicited further chiding and/or support: Burke 26/8 and Newman 28/9.
I am searching for Dickie's original letter, but our own newspaper only retains electronic versions available for a short time frame. Here it is, provided courtesy of the scribe himself, together with an earlier advice to the public from the same:
Mr Richard D McCure <bmccure@bigpond.net.au> |
Many Australians feel that the heir to the British throne Prince Charles will not be up to the job. As a result Republican sentiment seems to be on the up. It is often argued that it is demeaning for us to have a foreign Head of State. This argument is facile, particularly as the most ardent Republicans seem the most uncomfortable with the concept of Australian patriotism.
Importantly the last Referendum on the Republic foundered on the enigma of a method of choosing a head of state who would not be hostage to the fads and fashions of Australian political life. What better way of keeping our head of state above local politics than having them domiciled in another country? The British Constitutional Monarchy evolved over centuries and has been the most stable and enduring system in history. Its Head of State, whilst functionally powerless, relies on maintaining the respect of the subjects to be able to moderate the hubris of political leaders. The heredity, traditions, rituals, pageantry and palaces bolster that respect. The system has proved extraordinarily resilient and by-and-large impervious to the eccentricities of the Monarch. Better a remote head of state wearing a crown than an Australian ideologue President heading up a banana republic.
Richard McCure Hobart
Bob Holderness-Roddam (letters Wednesday) views Eric Abetz’s claim that 54.87% of Australians voted against the republic in 1999 is “mischievous misinformation”. The truth according to Bob is that most Australians actually wanted to vote for a republic and were tricked by the Howard Conservative government. Now as I recall the great problem with the model was the method of electing the president. But isn’t that always the problem with a republic and in fact with any system of government? How on earth can you get a leader that’s going to confer wisdom and stability to the nation rather than tear it apart. If stability is the yardstick the British constitutional monarchy is the winner hands down. While the rest of Europe was busy having revolutions and executing their intellectuals and their scientists and their teachers Britain provided a safe refuge for philosophers to put their views, for scientists to make spectacular discoveries and for engineers to build the industrial revolution. Somehow or other after centuries of conflict an amalgam of Church, Government and Monarchy came together in which freedom is maximised without sacrificing stability. When Edward V111 married an American divorcee against protocol the country didn’t descend into Civil War, it was able to “move on”. Even though the King was the head of state the content of his character did not determine the destiny of the country. In Australia we have an added level of protection by having our Monarch on the other side of the world, well and truly at “arm’s-length” from the dirty business of politics.
I think in this case the accusation of misinformation is more appropriately characterised as “those things I don’t happen to agree with”.
Richard McCure.
Sandy Bay
Kimber's initial response to the McCure stimulant:
To which Dickie replied:
Good to see Phillip Kimber modestly engaging on the future of our monarchy (Letters Saturday) and I am all for “looking to the future” in these dangerous times. As the international order deteriorates we are seeing the rise of authoritarian presidents worldwide. I think there are many Russian citizens who right now would love to have a monarch to give some counselling to President Putin. Unfortunately for the Russians, and for the rest of us, they slaughtered their Royal Family in 1918.
Richard McCure Sandy Bay
And others piled in or on:
A careful reading of Kimber's original indicates support for the replacement of the King of England (and the fruit of his loins) as the person who appoints the Governor General of Australia. The King appoints via his delegate, the Prime Minister of Australia. the Kimber proposal is to cut the necessity of link between Prime Minister and King - so the Prime Minister acts alone (or as otherwise advised) in the appointment.
The legal propriety of any appointment will continue to be subject to observation and legitimisation by the High Court of Australia (another institution which had the apron strings to the English courts cut - back in 1975). The political propriety will be dealt with at the ballot box - as it has done - for example with the atrocious decisions of Archbishop Hollingsworth (still sucking on the teat of the public purse for his lifetime after 'serving' for 5 minutes), and the Richard Butler affair in our own Tasmania.
Some minor procedure aspects will need further attention, but the basic proposition is not for a USA style President, nor to permit take-over of the Prime-Minister/Governor General duality by a Putin style gambit, but to allow the people to select the party, hence the Prime Minister, hence the Governor-General.
Maybe 'The (Indigenous/Aboriginal/First Nations/New Name this Week) Voice' will be permitted advisory input by the constitutional amendment proposal, but at present just our elected politicians as representatives of all people in our country who will decide on the appointment of Governor-General- as, I believe, it should be.
It is a pity P Newman's response is so short - it is unpersuasive. P Burke worries that the USA process would result in a debacle repeated if instituted into Australia. I am not advocating an extension of power to the Governor General, nor an election process, so we will not end up with administrative powers being devolved to the GG.
D McCure Esq worries about an authoritarian President taking over in Australia - Putin-like, however that concern is answered by the limitation of power on the GG as presently stands. I repeat that I do not advocate for devolution of power from our Parliament to our Governor General.
Next?
Comments
Post a Comment