26 Jul 2010
Australia is back in the middle of another federal election, just weeks after PM Kevin Rudd was unceremoniously dumped as leader. The new PM, Julia Gillard, has said that a republic is not a priority. But those of us who campaign for a British republic are eagerly awaiting the next republican push Down Under, because the sooner they ditch the monarchy, the sooner we can too.
For me, the question of an Australian republic is not just a matter of pragmatism from the British perspective of a professional campaigner, on a personal note, I lived in Australia for several years and was lucky enough to be granted citizenship.
I was there in 1999 and saw first-hand the botched (or perhaps sabotaged) first republican referendum. It would be nice to return to an Australia that had at last severed its obsolete and peculiar constitutional ties to the British monarchy.
I am perhaps living proof that such a move would in no way reduce the cultural and familial ties that form a strong bond between Australia and the UK. I know those bonds are strong and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Windsor family or the rights of Australians to choose an Australian head of state.
Australia has, in my view, taken the British political system and improved upon it immeasurably. It is only fitting that Australia should be the first to take that final step toward a fully fledged democracy and in the process show Britain the way forward.
I hope the principled reasons for supporting a republic are fairly well understood. I am a firm believer in republicanism as the fullest expression of the democratic ideal. I do not simply oppose the House of Windsor or Britain’s feudal and creaking constitution (which is not worth the paper it’s not written on according to one MP). I oppose the very idea of monarchy. No matter which country or which monarch, no matter if the monarch is a saint or a sinner, a drain on taxes or a revenue raiser, the inheritance of public office is wrong and it is indefensible.
In the UK, a core theme in the republican debate is the antiquated and muddled nature of the whole constitution and how a republic could bring real benefits to the way the country is governed. The arguments are as much about better governance as they are about democratic principle.
In Australia, the constitution is far superior, it is written down and it is fairly easy to understand. The Australian system works and works pretty well. It is hard to argue that the system would be greatly altered, or altered at all, by a move to a republic. But the case for change is still compelling, because those principles of democracy, equality and fairness, principles I know Australians value and cherish, are the bedrock of the republican position.
Putting aside my personal and principled perspectives, as a British republican it is the pragmatic view of the Australian republican debate which excites me the most. It is a view shared by many republicans in the UK: that Australia can lead the way and that Britain will surely follow (with a bit of a push in the right direction).
Put very simply, an Australian republic will undermine the position of monarchists in the UK and will give inspiration and momentum to British republicans. While not an earth-shattering event in itself, the impact of an Australian republic will be felt most keenly here in the UK. The move would be a major earthquake under the foundations of the monarchy. For the first time in living memory (perhaps in history) a peaceful and prosperous democratic society will freely choose to abandon this feudal relic in favour of a democratically elected Head of State.
Australia will be big news back here in the UK and around the world – news about the debate; news about the referendum and the result; news about the transition; news about the election of the first Australian-born Head of State. Every time this topic is raised, the question will automatically be asked: if Australia, why not Britain?
Supporters of the status quo will find it increasingly difficult to answer, because there is no good answer. What Australia can and wants to do, Britain can and should want to do.
Moreover the debate will be further reinforced by Canada and New Zealand, not to mention other smaller Commonwealth nations, all of whom would likely follow Australia down the republican path at some time in the future. New Zealand is making progress, and recent polls show that over half of Canadians now support severing ties with the British Monarchy – and that support is across the political spectrum. Could Australia start a domino effect?
The Australian debate could set off a slow-motion chain reaction which would, at the very least, leave the UK as the only remaining Commonwealth country with the Queen as Head of State.
Perhaps the biggest effect an Australian republic will have will be the inspiration it will give to republicans in the UK and the example it will set for all of us. Australians will prove beyond doubt that this change is not the enormous undertaking monarchists like to think it is.
Australia will show that pride in one’s nation, love of one’s country, does not have to be articulated by a backward looking obsession with outdated institutions – it can be demonstrated loud and clear, around the world, by taking a strong and bold step toward a more democratic and forward looking society.
Australia will prove false all the hollow arguments of the monarchists: that the constitutional changes are too complex; that the transition too painful; that from among our citizens we cannot choose one upstanding woman or man to represent us; that national identity is bound up with the Windsor family.
Britain has never had a referendum on the monarchy and although the headline figures in UK opinion polls have barely shifted in recent years, attitudes towards the monarchy have.
Much of the institution’s support is reserved solely for the Queen. At 83 she is approaching the twilight years of her reign, and the debate about the succession will grow in tandem with the debate in Australia.
Had Australia chosen a republican future twenty years ago the effect back here may have been limited. Today news travels further and faster, and our changed attitudes toward celebrity and royalty will make the ground that much more fertile for the republican cause. The question of a republic is a debate Australia must have, and I, along with many others in the UK, hope that debate is sooner rather than later.
[This is a version of an article published in Australia in 2008]
This entry was posted on Monday, July 26th, 2010 at 10:00 pm and is filed under Australia, Commonwealth, Republic & Campaigns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 26th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
There are 2 benefits for the British movement, to my mind that derive from the 1999 Australian referendum.
1. (as Graham points out) Delaying the inevitable has ensured the impact of a victory is felt tenfold here.
2. When the British movement gets its turn, lessons have been learnt from the earlier Australian referendum.
Thanks Mr Howard.
July 26th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Hi Graham
The new PM, Julia Gillard, has said that a republic is not a priority.
What’s quite worrying is that she’s said she has no plans to hold a referendum if she wins the election, while the Coalition leader Tony Abbott is a staunch monarchist…
I was there in 1999 and saw first-hand the botched (or perhaps sabotaged) first republican referendum. It would be nice to return to an Australia that had at last severed its obsolete and peculiar constitutional ties to the British monarchy.
If my observations are anything to go by, it would seem the problem here is that most republican members of the Australian political elite are so vehemently opposed to the idea of a directly-elected president that they would rather die under the monarchy than entertain the notion of that type of republic. It’s hugely frustrating, particularly since Australia also has very strong cultural ties with Ireland, which offers an excellent working demonstration of that model.
I am perhaps living proof that such a move would in no way reduce the cultural and familial ties that form a strong bond between Australia and the UK. I know those bonds are strong and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Windsor family or the rights of Australians to choose an Australian head of state.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. An Australian republic would actually improve the already-strong ties between Britain and Australia: these have become slightly one-sided due to a combination of patronising condescension & post-imperial guilt trip on the part of some Brits toward Aussies, and expectations of certain unofficial perks on the part of some Aussies when visiting the ‘Mother Country’; a case in point being the fact that 50% of the City of London’s junior workforce is Australian, no small factor in the creation of a ‘lost generation’ of British graduates; the Aussies choosing their own head of state would in time banish that mutual immaturity. Then all that remains, of course, is for us – along with all the other Commonwealth Realms – to get our own house in order by creating our own fully-functioning democracy, then perhaps the Commonwealth can emerge as a stronger, more united organisation and a force for good.
Australia has, in my view, taken the British political system and improved upon it immeasurably. It is only fitting that Australia should be the first to take that final step toward a fully fledged democracy and in the process show Britain the way forward.
Can’t argue with that first point! I would prefer it, however, if New Zealand got there before Australia, shaking off the current political trend in NZ for “waiting to see what Australia does” in matters of the monarchy, and sending out the message loud and clear that the nation which first gave women the vote is still leading the way in democratic reform within the Commonwealth (assuming Britain hasn’t already got there of course)!
July 28th, 2010 at 11:13 am
@Ash,
As i recall, the previous referendum in Australia was lost by the republicans rather than won by the monarchists.
The monarchists fought a very negative campaign based on inference and supposition of what a republic might look like.
Even so, the republicans comprised just under 50% of the referendum which is no mean size for a minority, and indications suggest that since the last referendum, support for a republic in Australia has actually grown.
The lesson we must learn in Britain if we have a referendum here is to agree on the principle of a republic over that of a monarchy. Only then can we look at the detail of the format the republic should take.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
The case for a Republic in Australia and other commonwealth realms is far stronger, many want “their own” head of state and to complete the transition from dominion to independence started many decades ago. I hope the liberal party there wins, the labour party is trouble like in this country.
However there really is little point for these nations to change the system whilst the Queen is alive, they should wait for her death, then the referendums on becoming republics will be held in those other nations and in most if not all cases be supported.
Just because Britain’s former colonies no longer want the British monarchy does not mean Britain feels the same way. The monarchy will then make Britain even more unique as we do not share our monarchy with other nations and many of those who support the monarchy in nations like Canada and Australia will feel even more attached with Britain as they no longer have monarchy in their own nations.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Simon:
The monarchy will then make Britain even more unique as we do not share our monarchy with other nations and many of those who support the monarchy in nations like Canada and Australia will feel even more attached with Britain as they no longer have monarchy in their own nations.
All the more reason for us to hurry up and abolish the monarchy ourselves. The last thing we want is an army of monarchy mourners pouring into Britain from Australia, saying they want to fully embrace the British heritage of their ancestors – only to then break open the bubbly on the streets of London to celebrate Australia winning the Ashes at the Oval!
July 28th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Lmao, i think it would be nice if there was an influx of refugees from the new republics. I have a couple of canadian friends who care about their British heritage and support the monarchy there. I dont know many Australians very well though.
As for the sports bit, we British can not even celebrate our own successes in sports. Lets not forget many Scots were backing Englands opponents in the world cup and it was not just the separatists, plenty of unionists enjoy the sporting rivalry which does do damage to the United Kingdom.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Martin G,
Yes you would like that, simply focusing on a principle so that the important details which many would oppose or have concerns about dont get mentioned. It is for republicans to justify and promote a wonderful foreign import and the British people to accept or reject it.
The British people can not be expected to vote on a referendum without knowing what they will get. The SNP try to do that with their silly separatist referendum, by rigging the question.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“The case for a Republic in Australia and other commonwealth realms is far stronger, many want “their own” head of state and to complete the transition from dominion to independence started many decades ago. I hope the liberal party there wins, the labour party is trouble like in this country.
However there really is little point for these nations to change the system whilst the Queen is alive, they should wait for her death, then the referendums on becoming republics will be held in those other nations and in most if not all cases be supported
Just because Britain’s former colonies no longer want the British monarchy does not mean Britain feels the same way”
I actually agree with Simon on this one, although reluctantly! It is true that it’s easier for the dominions like Canada, Australia will abolish the monarchy because the monarchy whilst theirs in name isn’t really theirs but the UKs. They slap the name of “Canadian Royal Family” and “Australian Royal Family” on them but everyone knows their visits don’t go beyond the occasional jaunt every few years.
“The monarchy will then make Britain even more unique as we do not share our monarchy with other nations and many of those who support the monarchy in nations like Canada and Australia will feel even more attached with Britain as they no longer have monarchy in their own nations.”
This could be true, although it is a bit of spin of the monarchists making the monarchy out to be superior to everything! Allegedly if she’s Queen of Canada and Australia etc then they’re lucky to be part of the monarchy. If they’re not then they’ll be jealous of us. H’mmm …
Although I actually think that when they do become republics they’ll be very happy for it, and it’ll only be the British monarchists that think their monarchy the envy of the world. It’s funny, because I put that view to a foreign friend of mine, and asked him if we were the envy of the world because we had a monarchy, and the rest of the world looked to it. The reply I got said it all – he fell about laughing!!
July 28th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Yes, Jammydodger, I think you’ve hit on another monarchist myth there, and it’s one they’re very fond of bandying about. The entire world, to hear them talk, envies our monarchy. I doubt it, and even if it were true what’s the relevance to us and our part-time democracy?
July 28th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I agree Bob. They harp on about “but everyone in the world knows the Queen”. Everyone in the world also knows the US President, and they only serve for 4 – 8 years at a time! Both come from being the most prominent English-speaking countries, and are prominent because English is a global language – the many people who learn English usually learn the American dialect or the British, and so they are bound to learn about the Head of States of those two countries. But just because monarchists love the royal family they automatically assume everyone else does too!
The French president is well known to us, because we have strong ties with France. But most people I’ll wager do not know who the Queen of Denmark is, or that Denmark even has a queen …
So it just depends on the country. NOT whether the country is a monarchy or not!
August 6th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
This is a traversty this is the Monarchy was behind this escapade, when Kevin Rudd was obviously sacked due his views! I hope the Australians will see this as controversial move to keep the Monarchy with it’s weak and feeble aims to stay in power with or without consider ation of peoples wishes! To be honest with you this was the Monarchy that did this!
August 8th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Erm, is anyone who is making a comment here actually Australian?? I am, and I’m quite amazed about some of the comments here.
The insinuation that Kevin Rudd was dumped by some monarchist power group is frankly insulting, and was probably written by someone who has read way too many Dan Brown books. Anyone who lives in Australia knows that both monarchist and republican groups could hold meetings in a phone box – no one is interested.
There are no rallies for a republic, there is little to no talk in the media, there are no grass roots opposition
– there’s nothing. I hate to say this, but I think the Queen of Australia will last a long time because no one wants or is campaigning for change. Its a non-issue. Most Aussies are happy with the constitution and the old addage “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” could well be used here.
The sooner republicans start making sensible arguments, the sooner people might listen. Kevin Rudd ousted by monarchists, yeah, right. And I guess the Queen was on the Grassy Knoll the day Kennedy was shot?
Kevin Rudd was a very popular PM who was simply voted out by his party. You could argue that the unions (who controlled the factions that ousted him) or disillusioned MPs were to blame. Interesting enough, the same happened to Margaret Thatcher, and it looked like it could have happened to Gordon Brown too.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Sorry, one other comment.
The Australian people in 1999 voted 72% against the abolotion of the monarchy, and not a single state supported the referendum (four of the six states must support it). You can argue that “the republicans lost, but the monarchists didnt win” but the numbers speak for themselves.
Interestingly enough, the republican vote since then has rarely been above 50%. Last opinion poll I saw, a few months back in the Australian, said only 45% were in favour of an undefined republic. Oh and the youth vote was even more against.
I’m telling you – we Aussies do not want it! Why do you think our new PM is saying the republic is not a priority? If a referendum was held again today, a republic would be voted down.
Sorry guys, but at least I am an Australian! Not saying that there arent passionate republicans out there, but as I said in my last comment – it is a non issue for us.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Hi Stewart… yes, I am Australian. Not that that matters or has any particular relevance to the debate.
You seem to have picked up on one comment made by one person, and I agree that that comment was way off (about Rudd being deposed by monarchists).
The polls I have seen tell me that Australians will take an opportunity, if one is presented, to remove the monarchy and choose a republic. However, as you say, the campaign is not pushing the issue and so the politicians are sidelining it.