 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Australian republicanism is a movement within Australia to replace the country's existing status as a Commonwealth realm under a constitutional monarchy with a republican form of government. This would sever the historical ties with the British monarchy and remove the last lingering political ties between the two countries.
Australia's constitutional structures are complicated. The commonwealth as a federated unit is a constitutional monarchy with a non-resident monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, the 'Queen of Australia'. (Queen Elizabeth is, of course, also the Queen of the United Kingdom and several other Commonwealth Realms.) But each Australian state itself is also a constitutional monarchy, with a dual relationship to the Queen - individually (the Queen being represented by a governor) and through the Commonwealth of Australia, where she is represented by the Governor-General.
This is further complicated by each state having a separate constitution, while the Commonwealth possesses a complex mix of a written constitution alongside convention, tradition, reserve powers and Letters Patent. (The scale of the complexity is shown in the fact that though the Commonwealth has always had a prime minister, the office doesn't feature in the Constitution.)
The Australian Constitution is a creature of English law, namely the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900. Thus, it was always technically possible for the UK Parliament to unilaterally amend or even abolish the Australian Constitution, although this never happened in practice (and would have been unthinkable). However, since the passage of the Australia Act, 1986, the British Parliament has no power at all to amend the Australian Constitution, this being solely the prerogative of the Australian people and the Australian Parliament.
In practice, the Queen rarely exercises her power in Australia; such exercises have been confined to the ceremonial opening of Parliament, and attending meetings of the Executive Council and the Privy Council during the Queen's official visits. The Crown's powers are vested in the Governor-General who acts in the name of the Queen in such matters as granting Royal Assent to Parliamentary bills. He does so without consulting with the Queen, and she has no personal role in the exercise of these powers. One of the monarch's principal roles is formally appointing the Governor-General and state governors; this is done on the advice of the Prime Minister or the relevant state premier. In contemporary Australia, as in most constitutional monarchies, the monarch is obliged to follow the "advice" of their democratically elected ministers in all but the most extreme circumstances. Australian republicans, notably through the Australian Republican Movement have sought to abolish the current constitution, governor-generalship and the monarchy, replacing all three with a new republican constitution with a selected locally resident head of state.
The Australian Labor Party first made republicanism its official policy in 1991, with then Prime Minister Bob Hawke describing a republic as inevitable. His successor Paul Keating actively pursued a republican agenda, putting forward plans to prepare a revised constitution to take effect on the centenary of federation: January 1, 2001. The preparation of the proposal by a part-elected, part appointed Constitutional Convention in February 1998 was hurried and (according to critics) bungled. Many republicans claimed that incoming Prime Minister John Howard, in his own words an "unashamed royalist", sabotaged the preparation process deliberately: a claim he indignantly denied.
The Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, and the Australian Greens all support a move towards a republic as a matter of policy. The Nationals are the only party to be anti-republican as a matter of policy. The Liberals do not have an official stance on the matter, with some Liberals, such as Treasurer and Deputy Leader Peter Costello, playing a prominent role in the yes campaign. This has lead to speculation that if Costello ever became Prime Minister he would move for the adaptation of a republic.
The main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for the citizen of a country at the other end of the world to be their head of state. They argued that a foreigner whose main job is as the head of state of the United Kingdom, and spends his or her life there, cannot represent Australia, not to itself, nor to the rest of the world. As Frank Cassidy, a member of the Australian Republican Movement put it in a speech on the issue:
Furthermore, Australia had changed culturally and demographically, from being "British to our bootstraps", as prime minister Sir Robert Menzies once put it, to being increasingly multicultural. For Australians of Italian or Chinese origin, the idea of the British monarch as head of state was unusual, while even for some of those of British origin, it was an anachronism. Aborigines saw it as a symbol of British imperialism, as did Australians of Irish origin. According to monarchists, however, immigrants who left unstable republics and have arrived in Australia since 1945 have welcomed the social and political stability that they found in Australia under a constitutional monarchy.
Also, it was widely argued that several characteristics of the monarchy were in conflict with modern Australian values. The hereditary nature of the monarchy was said to conflict with Australian egalitarianism and dislike of inherited privilege. The laws of succession were held to be sexist and the links between the monarchy and the church inconsistent with Australia's secular character. More to the point, Australian anti-discrimination laws expressly prohibit arrangements under which males have precedence over females, or under which becoming or marrying a Catholic invalidates any legal rights. Monarchists claim that the succession of a an 'apolitical' head of state provides a far more stable system than frequently electing new presidents who may have their own political agenda.
Australian 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.
In 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.
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'.
For 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."
Second, public opinion was not (and still is not) divided in a simple yes/no manner. The major opinion groups were:
Different groups within the republican cause expressed views as to which one was preferable. Some were committed to one exclusively.
On 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" 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 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.
The 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.
Republicans 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.
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
