(DO WE NEED A)

RUMP MONARCH?

Despair of a republican

BY DEREK STRAHAN

All Rights Reserved Copyright (C) 1999 Derek Strahan

(1250 words)

Derek Strahan is a Sydney-based free-lance writer and composer. He holds a BA Cantab degree in Modern Languages (French & Spanish)

Despair provokes me to write this plea for rationality in the ongoing debate about whether or not Australia should become a Republic. Despair, because, in its current phase, the debate consists of adversaries bashing each other with slogans. Despair, because words are being used loosely, with little regard for meaning. Despair, because the entire debate is centering around who should replace the Queen and Governors in a Republic, and how this person should be appointed. Despair, because this question is a furphy, and because no one is debating whether or not such a replacement is needed!

I offer the suggestion that a Republican constitution does not need to have both a chief executive and a ceremonial head of state. A change of name from Governor to President is, in essence, a change of name and nothing more.

I offer the suggestion that a Republican constitution does not need to have both a chief executive and a ceremonial head of state. A change of name from Governor to President is, in essence, a change of name and nothing more. What does change is that, without a connection to the monarch, the office of Governor/President becomes redundant, and the person appointed to that office becomes merely a rump monarch. To retain the office after its function has become extinct makes no sense, unless new functions are established by new laws.

It seems to me that there are three primary issues to be addressed, in considering if Australia should become an independent republic. (In the following by the term "leader" is meant "chief executive"). The three primary issues are:

1) How the leader is chosen.

2) How the leader can be sacked.

3) Who owns or has title to the land which makes up the nation.

As regards a leader, I would prefer to live in a country whose leader is elected by universal suffrage, rather than in a country ruled by a leader who inherits power because of birth. The problem is that Australia has both systems, so the choice is not straightforward.. As most of us know, Great Britain has no written constitution. It is governed according to a body of law established by precedent over many centuries and this constitutes the law of the land. Since there is no written constitution, there is no special restraint on altering laws by Parliament, and major changes can be made without special majorities or referenda, sometimes in only a day. To speak of constitutional monarchy, then, is misleading, since it implies that the monarchy is bound by a given set of restrictions. It is not. It is only bound by custom, and that custom is entirely dependent on what is called royal assent.

The two-party system and election to Parliament by universal suffrage are merely modern refinements designed to make Cabinet more representative of the people than in the days when advisory committees comprised robber barons.

Under British law the Crown is statutory and is the ultimate authority. Parliament evolved out of advisory committees, and assumed its present authority and supremacy only by royal assent. The crown still reserves most of its prerogatives and is the principle agent of government. Deals were struck whereby Parliament would acknowledge this, but retain the power to control money and legislation; and the Crown would only govern on the basis of the advice of ministers of Cabinet. Cabinet is thus the modern equivalent of the old advisory committees.The two-party system and election to Parliament by universal suffrage are merely modern refinements designed to make Cabinet more representative of the people than in the days when advisory committees comprised robber barons .

Is this system of government relevant to Australia today? Not unless you retain the monarchy. It seems to me that if you don't retain the monarchy, then you have to find equivalents for the safeguards which monarchy is seen to provide against abuse of power by rulers. Under law, at present, the real rulers of Australia are the various Governors, State and Federal, since they represent the authority of the Crown, and Parliament only acts by royal assent (of the Crown), of which the governors are the legal representatives. A question to ask is: do we want a ruler, or do we want a leader? Monarchs rule, and the people they rule are subject to the rule of the monarch. In law, at present, all Australians are subjects of Her Majesty. Under a secular government, the leader does not rule: he, or she serves. The people the leader serves are citizens. Which is preferable? To be ruled or to be served. Most Australians, I think, would prefer their leader to serve them, rather than to rule them. They would rather be citizens than subjects.

Most Australians, I think, would prefer their leader to serve them, rather than to rule them. They would rather be citizens than subjects.

If Australia severs its legal subservience to the Crown, what need is there to retain the representatives of the Crown? At present there is much talk about keeping the role of the Governor-General and renaming him or her, President. But this President will have no real power, unless new laws are enacted to create powers. If no news laws are enacted, what will the President preside over? Garden parties? Laying foundation stones? Opening parks, highways and buildings? If news laws are enacted, will they invest in the President the former powers of the Governor-General? This would not be advisable, because he or she would then have the powers of a dictator without the restraints of a monarch, and would have greater power than the Prime Minister.

The simple solution to the question of how to elect the President of the Republic of Australia is to have no President. Or, if we must have a President, let us rename the Prime Minister, and call him or her, the President. Let's not get fixated on names! What we are talking about is executive power.

If this course is taken, then it remains to devise a means by which the people can sack the Prime Minister/President, if necessary. This power should surely reside not in one person (as at present), but in the law. The judiciary must have the power to impeach, and limits to the power of the leader must be defined in law. The U.S. manages this issue effectively, in accordance with its written Constitution. Unlike Britain, Australia does have a written Constitution which surely must be modified to reflect the new reality of a Republic.

The very word "royal" has its linguistic root in the word "real", and the word "royalty" is the same word as "realty".

I began by suggesting that there are three primary issues which must be addressed. One, how to elect the leader. Two, how to sack the leader. Three, who owns the land which makes up the nation? Under the present system the answer is quite clear. The Crown owns Australia. Land title of any kind, including Freehold, is only given by royal assent, enacted through Parliament. The royal prerogative with regard to land is of primary importance to the institution of Monarchy. The deals done over the centuries between Monarch and Parliament have all been basically trade-offs to enable the Crown to retain title to land. The very word "royal" has its linguistic root in the word "real", and the word "royalty" is the same word as "realty". In the Spanish language the two words are still the same. The "royal" family is thus the "real" family, since "royalty" signifies "realty". It is the family which owns the most "real" estate. Land is the basis of its power.

The Monarchy has indicate that it will withdraw from Australia, if that is the will of the Australian people. If it does withdraw, it becomes vital for Australians to know what laws will be enacted by our own Parliament to determine in what statutory body is invested primary ownership of the land which constitutes the nation. The debate on land title should become an intrinsic part of the debate on the republic.

Back to Polemic