by John Pyke
Much of the argument for a republic, ever since Paul Keating riased the issue, has focussed on the notion that Australia needs to show its independence of the United Kingdom. I agree, but in my opinion this is only one of two reasons, and the least important of them. The main argument is that only a republic is consistent with Australian notions of equality and democracy. Both these reasons are discussed below, in order of importance.
In a democracy we are not subjects of a monarch, we are citizens - and a citizen is someone who, as Aristotle said over 2000 years ago, both rules and is ruled. In a democracy all citizens ought to be able to aspire to all public offices, and all public officials ought to be elected, directly or indirectly, by the people, or fairly appointed on the basis of suitability for the position. There is no room for inherited office! A democratic republic is the only complete democracy. It would be a very Australian thing to institute a republic.
The Constitution of a democracy ought to make it clear that the nation is a democracy. Ours is a strange compromise. On one hand it refers to a House of Representatives and Senate "directly elected by the people", and requires our approval, expressed by voting in a referendum, before the Constitution can be altered; here it is clearly democratic. On the other hand it says that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen (of the United Kingdom) and is exercised by the Governor-General, who merely takes "advice" from Ministers who sit among the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. In two places the Constitution refers to a "subject of the Queen" - and a subject is someone who is ruled but does not rule. In these aspects it is monarchical and colonial. Only a republican Constitution can spell out our commitment to democracy without compromise.
Further, being "subjects" of the Queen affects the way in which people of other nations perceive us. I am not saying we have so little self-confidence that we should be guided on an issue like this solely by what other people think of us, but it is a factor. When the then President of the United States, Bill Clinton, replied to a toast to himself at a dinner in Canberra, he followed protocol by toasting (in her absence) "the Queen of Australia" - and everyone who was there could tell that he was just as struck by the absurdity of it as most of the Australians present were. A few years ago, when I met a law Professor from Japan, the first thing he wanted to know was how I felt about Australia being seen as tied to Britain; he thought we needed a better symbol of our own independence. Our former Brisbane Lord Mayor, Sally-Anne Atkinson, was converted to republicanism by her experiences as the ambassador to UNESCO, in Paris - people were constantly commenting on the oddity of our being "ruled" by the Queen of England.
Nor is the sadly dysfunctional nature of the royal family any more than a reinforcing reason for sacking them from their Constitutional position. Even if the royal family consisted of saints and geniuses - even if some members were both - that would be no reason to allow them to inherit the position of monarch. Nobody should obtain a political or constitutional position by inheritance - all positions should be filled by election or fair selection on the basis of merit. If merit runs in a family, they may be elected over several generations, like the Roosevelts (uncle and nephew) in America. If a family has no merit let them get out of the public arena.
These, originally English, ideas were put into practice in the United States of America, and have since been copied in much of the democratic world including Australia. However, they were seen as dangerous in England and some of those who argued for them were prosecuted and even executed - not only by monarchs but by the republican leader, Oliver Cromwell. Though most of the world's modern democratic theories originated in England, the ruling classes cleverly resisted their implementation in England, so that the current English political system is less democratic than many other western countries. It is only just now getting rid of the hereditary component of its House of Lords. There is still no acceptance in English legal theory of the sovereignty of the people, though it was first advanced by English political theorists three centuries ago. According to the established Constitutional theory - still solemnly taught in the English law schools - Parliament is sovereign and "can make or unmake any law whatsoever". It could limit the right to vote, or extend its own term to 7 years, or 20, or whatever suited the party in power. Even the extension of voting rights to all the people was put into practice later - and more reluctantly - than in England's former colonies. To put the above democratic principles more completely into practice here would not, I repeat, be to reject our English political heritage - it would be to put more emphasis on the democratic part of that heritage and less on the aristocratic, absolutist and deferential part.
[Incidentally, it cannot be supposed (as some seem to suppose) that British migrants are more likely to be royalists than the rest of us. In the lead-up to the Constitutional Convention I asked a Welsh-born woman "Why did you come here?" and she said "To get away from the weather and the class system". The monarchy is the apex of the English class system. To keep the monarchy is to keep a symbol of inherited wealth and position, whose holders expect deference by the rest of the population - and many people who have come here from the United Kingdom are more aware of that than some Australians are!]
And see also the first few Chapters of Government Under a Book of Rules, on this site.