Australian Republicanism – an educational monograph

Charioteers will appreciate that Republicanism may, when mentioned on The Chariot, refer to either of two distinctly different movements.

There is, I understand, a Republican, anti-Monarchy movement in the UK.   I know absolutely nothing about this movement since, regular visits notwithstanding, I have not lived there for over two decades.   I do have some broadbrush opinions on the UK Monarchy and the constitutional framework in which it exists, which are based on earlier experiences supplemented by contemporary attention to current affairs, but I cannot claim to be fully informed – nor would I expect to be, being a foreigner.   Boadicea has already mentioned the two main areas in which I feel that your UK Monarchy has failed (ceding sovereignty to the EU, neglecting the rôle of Defender of the Faith), but – and you may have noticed this – I have not attempted to join UK-centric discussion on the subject.   I do not know enough about what is going on there.

The second type of Republicanism that may be encountered within The Chariot is the Australian variety, about which I can, and do, claim considerable knowledge.   I venture to suggest that Charioteers, save Boadicea, Bilby, Bootsy and Donald, know little about Australian Republicanism; it is therefore incumbent upon me to educate you, less you fall into error from lack of nous.   It is not the same as the UK variety, because it begins from a different place; it starts from a different premise.   Please allow me to lead you slowly down the winding path of history to an appreciation of the contemporary antipodean condition.

You may be unaware that there was no such thing as an Australian Citizen until January 1st 1949 – sixty-two years ago.   You may also be unaware that Australia was not a fully sovereign nation until 1986, when the Australia Act was passed simultaneously in the Australian and UK parliaments – twenty-five years ago.   Consider that, for a moment.   As a truly independent nation, we have existed for only 25 years – a relatively short period.   There have only been Australians, with Aussie Passports, for 62 years – most of us here on The Chariot were born before the first Aussie Passport was issued.   We are, irrespective of federation in 1901, a very young country politically.

There is, as you’ve no doubt noticed when you’ve visited, or when you’ve been to Earls Court or other Aussie occupied territories, a strong sense of national identity in Australia.   It has, strange though you may find it, little to do with a British heritage.

I’ve posted the Seekers version (they wrote it), but it has also been recorded by Yothu Yindi, so it has impeccable credentials with the “Original Owners” – our Aboriginal mates.

We are Greek, Italian, Irish, German; we are South American, Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian and Korean.   And many more.  You cannot tell us by our features, only our voices and actions mark us as Australian.   We are one, but we are many.   Our culture and national character are unique – though the Kiwis come a good second, and you can’t tell a Kiwi by his appearance, either.   We believe, almost above anything else, in “a fair go”, and we are fiercely independent.

This growing sense of nationhood has become primarily focussed on two specific goals – our flag and our Head of State.

The flag is a thorny subject in its own right, with cogent arguments on both sides, but there is little doubt that in due course we shall change to an emblem which does not feature the Union Jack in the corner.   I may post an explanatory monograph on this.

There is a general, widespread feeling that we deserve, and must have, our own Head of State.   How many other countries in the world have a foreigner as their personified soul and figurehead?   Apart from fourteen other Commonwealth Realms (Canada, New Zealand and 12 tiddlers), nary a one.   The vast majority of our citizens (over 80%, I believe) would like our independent nationhood to be recognised by having an Australian Head of State. It is from this foundation that Australian Republicanism is born.

At this point, I must interrupt the flow of my discourse in order to introduce two other fundamental considerations.  For many years, the maturing national sentiment included a great deal of loyalty to the country that had founded us.   “Blighty”, or “The Old Dart”, was regarded with great affection as our mentor and guide.   But when the UK joined the Common Market and abandoned Australia and New Zealand to their economic fate in a free market devoid of the previous preferential Commonwealth trading arrangements, this changed overnight.   We had been cast adrift by our family, disinherited and unloved.   The reaction, in typical Australian fashion, was to say, “OK, sod you Britain, you go play with your new friends, we’ll do it ourselves without your help”; and we did.

There remained the ‘cultural cringe’, which was still alive and kicking when Boadicea and I moved here.   If you’re not familiar with the term, it was a flaw in the national psyche that felt that we couldn’t do anything worthwhile – in arts or science or industry – because anything good had to originate from Britain.  Over the past two decades, as Australian fortunes climbed and Britain descended on the slippery slope to insignificance, the ‘cultural cringe’ has thankfully all but disappeared, and we now accept that Australian achievements are amongst the best, if not the best, in the world.   Look at our dollar!

Having established that, let’s turn back to our primary beef, our desire for an Australian Head of State.   In practical terms, it doesn’t matter.   Nothing in Australia is controlled by the UK; nothing, zilch, nada; Australia drives its own destiny.   There are quite a few deluded Brits who still don’t believe this.   One sees them on MyT, and I think I’ve even seen someone comment on the Chariot that Australia remains subservient to the UK, but they should read the 1986 Act and put themselves straight.

So we are talking of symbolism, not real power, and in an effort to accommodate this , the ’86 Act created the position of ‘Queen of Australia’, an office which is wholly distinct from “Queen of the UK, etc., etc.”.  In theory, the Monarch of Australia doesn’t have to be Lizzie Windsor, who currently fulfils both rôles; it could be anyone.   Aussies are not, in the main, opposed to constitutional monarchy per se and they certainly have nothing against Lizzie herself; they quite like her (although regarding her as an irrelevance) and they have a sneaking regard for Phil the Greek with his wonderfully non-PC utterances.   Prince William proved to be outstandingly popular during his recent visit, and the entire country went troppo over the wedding and fell in love, lock , stock and barrel, with Princess Kate.   Big Ears and Camilla are not liked, however.

So there are some who see the provisions of the ’86 Act as a solution.   They suggest that Prince Harry (for example) should take the title and move to live in Australia, taking Australian citizenship and thereby becoming “King Harry the First of Australia”.   There would be no need for a change to our constitution, and there are plenty of historical precedents for offspring, derivative monarchies.   We could then abolish the positions of Governor-General and State Governors (all six of them), saving a bundle of money and clarifying the authenticity of State Governments (another anachronism that could do with rationalisation, but again, that’s for discussion elsewhere). This solution is not supported by the primary pressure groups, and there is the thorny practical problem of selecting a royal who would be both popular enough and willing to exile himself/herself, but it would certainly satisfy many people.

The people, as shown by informed analyses of the 2000 Referendum, have a strong preference for a Head of State who can exercise back-pressure on the wilder policies of our governments.   For example, someone who could have said “NO!” to John Howard when he took us into the Iraq invasion.   75% of us did not want this to happen, but our elected representatives ignored the will of the people.   Hence a politician is the last person we want as Head of State.   But the politicians of all colours do not want to cede power, and they are clinging tenaciously to the concept of a Head of State being elected by them, a meaningless figurehead who would be as irrelevant as post-dismissal Governors-General have become.

There are also many in positions of power who regard constitutional monarchies as embarrassing anachronisms, insisting that Australia should not live in the past, but should adopt what they call “modern thinking”.   Unfortunately, the most strident of these are left-wing die-hards who love social engineering, political correctness and man-made global warming; these Chardonnay Socialists are becoming as much of a pest here as they already are in the UK.

Until such time as the movers-and-shakers get it into their thick skulls that citizens’ voices must be heard, that we are not going to accept yet another layer of duplicitous, rorting pollies, we are unlikely to see a Referendum passed on a Republic or an alternative monarchy.   The status quo will endure, satisfying no-one.

Author: Bearsy

A Queensland Bear with attitude View all posts by Bearsy