I know I'm not alone in being sick to death of the Royal Wedding coverage everywhere. Yes I hear someone cry that I don't have to read it. Well that would be true if it was confined to the likes of Hello magazine and so forth. But when you see a line of newspaper headlines all obsessing over minutia relating to the wedding and the couple, when you find the television news descending into celebrity dribble or when you see the couple's pictures up even in shop windows there's just no escaping it.
Okay the wedding itself will be massive and lots of people will want to watch it, so let them have the wedding day itself. But don't subject the country (and indeed the rest of the world) to months upon months of ramming it down our throats.
Showing posts with label republic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republic. Show all posts
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
The future of the monarchy
My final thoughts on last week's events in Australia relates to the issue down under that usually generates the most interest here - the republic debate. The new Liberal leader, Tony Abbott, is a firm monarchist, in contrast to his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, who is a former chair of the Australian Republican Movement. So people will be wondering whether this makes the monarchy any safer in Australia, and in turn whether this will have any knock-on effects in the other Commonwealth Realms including the UK.
Personally I think the current revolving door on the Liberal Party leadership is not going to have the slightest impact one way or the other. That's because I don't think a decisive move is going to happen any time soon for three reasons:
The problem is that under the system of government in both countries, the monarch (or their representative the Governor General) has HUGE powers but by convention they are almost never exercised except on the formal advice of the government of the day or in exceptional political crises where the monarch/Governor General has to step in to force a resolution. The main ones I'll focus on are:
But to simply replace the monarch with a President with no other changes to the system will mean that suddenly the powers are wielded by a person with a mandate. And depending on what mandate that is - a directly elected President could claim their very election to the post as a mandate; even a parliamentary appointed President could argue they have the same legitimacy as the government of the day - there is a real danger that the powers could be used.
Imagine, for an instance, that the government of the day is going through a period of midterm unpopularity of the type early all suffer, and the opposition wish that an election could happen right now as they would win a thumping victory. Now supposing the President was from the opposition party and exercised their powers to force a snap election - would that be right? But what is to stop them? The answer isn't convention. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis saw several conventions broken for the sake of political expediency, with only lip service given to higher reasons for breaking such conventions, culminating in the opposition using their control of the Senate to force an early election. (Whether Australia had a monarch, Governor General or President in the role of umpire probably wouldn't have made any difference. One might argue a President would have to face the electorate for their decision, but then the opposition did and they gained/retained control of both houses.)
Or what is to stop a President intervening to sack individual ministers under fire? Or to veto legislation? The answer would be absolutely nothing.
There are two possible ways round this, but both have their pains. The first is to rigidly define the President's powers and either reallocate some of them or remove the problem altogether - for instance the power to appoint other ministers could be transferred completely to the Prime Minister. The second is to build in a mechanism that can in the first instance allow for political or popular overriding of the President's decision and in the second remove the President from office before the expiry of their term.
Both of these can be done, but most current republics have been republics since at least the adoption of their current constitution and have developed solutions at the outset. They haven't had to radically alter their constitution when everything else is functioning normally, or have to face the political fallout. And they haven't had to answer other questions - e.g. if the Parliament can immediately override a Presidential veto, why does it take so much longer for the lower house to override a veto in the upper house and shouldn't that also be changed?
(Australia has the yet further problem that constitutional amendments must pass at referendums with the double requirement of a majority of those voting plus a majority in each of at least four states. Only 8 of the 44 referendums have passed. In the UK whilst we would probably have a referendum on the basics of the monarchy vs the general sort of republic proposed, the detail would be thrashed out in Parliament.)
That's not to say this is impossible, but for a republic to come about it will need far more than just dislike of the royals - all the remarks of the Duke of Edinburgh or the foolishness of certain younger royals or silliness from hangers on like Princess Michael of Kent are not going to bring this about. It will require much discussion and agreement on the detail and real solutions found to the potential for abuse of power. The 1999 Australian referendum saw a divide between those republicans who supported the proposed parliamentary-appointed model and those who favoured direct election and so voted against the proposal on the table - one of the details attacked the most was the proposal for the Prime Minister to be able to sack the President.
Of course once such a model is found that can work within the political traditions and culture of the country then it could well be only a matter of time before change comes. And given the links between the various Commonwealth republican movements (see Common Cause) it is probable that the basic model that works for Australia will work for other Commonwealth countries and spread there. But it will take time. A lot of time.
Personally I think the current revolving door on the Liberal Party leadership is not going to have the slightest impact one way or the other. That's because I don't think a decisive move is going to happen any time soon for three reasons:
- It's only ten years since the Australian public rejected a republic at a referendum and many have a "been there, done that" attitude to the question.
- The present Queen is personally very popular and many Australian republicans have openly stated they don't believe the issue can be won in her lifetime.
- Republicans are split over what form of republic they want because of a realisation of the potential consequences.
The problem is that under the system of government in both countries, the monarch (or their representative the Governor General) has HUGE powers but by convention they are almost never exercised except on the formal advice of the government of the day or in exceptional political crises where the monarch/Governor General has to step in to force a resolution. The main ones I'll focus on are:
- The ability to dissolve Parliament.
- The ability to appoint and dismiss ministers and whole governments.
- The ability to withhold assent to legislation.
But to simply replace the monarch with a President with no other changes to the system will mean that suddenly the powers are wielded by a person with a mandate. And depending on what mandate that is - a directly elected President could claim their very election to the post as a mandate; even a parliamentary appointed President could argue they have the same legitimacy as the government of the day - there is a real danger that the powers could be used.
Imagine, for an instance, that the government of the day is going through a period of midterm unpopularity of the type early all suffer, and the opposition wish that an election could happen right now as they would win a thumping victory. Now supposing the President was from the opposition party and exercised their powers to force a snap election - would that be right? But what is to stop them? The answer isn't convention. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis saw several conventions broken for the sake of political expediency, with only lip service given to higher reasons for breaking such conventions, culminating in the opposition using their control of the Senate to force an early election. (Whether Australia had a monarch, Governor General or President in the role of umpire probably wouldn't have made any difference. One might argue a President would have to face the electorate for their decision, but then the opposition did and they gained/retained control of both houses.)
Or what is to stop a President intervening to sack individual ministers under fire? Or to veto legislation? The answer would be absolutely nothing.
There are two possible ways round this, but both have their pains. The first is to rigidly define the President's powers and either reallocate some of them or remove the problem altogether - for instance the power to appoint other ministers could be transferred completely to the Prime Minister. The second is to build in a mechanism that can in the first instance allow for political or popular overriding of the President's decision and in the second remove the President from office before the expiry of their term.
Both of these can be done, but most current republics have been republics since at least the adoption of their current constitution and have developed solutions at the outset. They haven't had to radically alter their constitution when everything else is functioning normally, or have to face the political fallout. And they haven't had to answer other questions - e.g. if the Parliament can immediately override a Presidential veto, why does it take so much longer for the lower house to override a veto in the upper house and shouldn't that also be changed?
(Australia has the yet further problem that constitutional amendments must pass at referendums with the double requirement of a majority of those voting plus a majority in each of at least four states. Only 8 of the 44 referendums have passed. In the UK whilst we would probably have a referendum on the basics of the monarchy vs the general sort of republic proposed, the detail would be thrashed out in Parliament.)
That's not to say this is impossible, but for a republic to come about it will need far more than just dislike of the royals - all the remarks of the Duke of Edinburgh or the foolishness of certain younger royals or silliness from hangers on like Princess Michael of Kent are not going to bring this about. It will require much discussion and agreement on the detail and real solutions found to the potential for abuse of power. The 1999 Australian referendum saw a divide between those republicans who supported the proposed parliamentary-appointed model and those who favoured direct election and so voted against the proposal on the table - one of the details attacked the most was the proposal for the Prime Minister to be able to sack the President.
Of course once such a model is found that can work within the political traditions and culture of the country then it could well be only a matter of time before change comes. And given the links between the various Commonwealth republican movements (see Common Cause) it is probable that the basic model that works for Australia will work for other Commonwealth countries and spread there. But it will take time. A lot of time.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Conservative republicans
And the result of the Australian Liberal leadership election is in. Sydney Morning Herald: Malcolm Turnbull ousts Brendan Nelson as Liberal Party leader. Now whether or not this will prove to be the Australian Liberals' Iain Duncan Smith to Michael Howard moment remains to be seen.
Although Malcolm Turnbull was a Cabinet minister in the last Coalition government, he is best known in the UK as the lawyer in the Spycatcher trial and as the former chair of the Australian Republican Movement at the time of the Australian republic referendum, 1999. The latter point has led to some commenters on Conservativeinternational: Malcolm Turnbull is new leader of Australia's Liberals to question whether the Liberals can still be considered a sister party at all. This frankly says far more about blinkered opinions of what is and isn't "conservatism" than it does about the Australian Liberals.
At the end of the day modern conservatism around the world is not defined by attachment to some particular organ of government. Whilst most conservative parties differ on details due to differing national circumstances, most of them come down to common positions in terms of economics & taxation, the rule of law and a strong position on the world stage. There's no monarchy in that lot. Conservative politicians have committed acts of republicanism in the past, most notably when Stanley Baldwin forced Edward VIII's abdication (any choice or rejection of a head of state is republicanism) and I have no doubt that if this country does ever have a referendum on the subject we will see some Conservative party members at the forefront of a republic campaign. Malcolm Turnbull is no heretic in the international conservative family.
Although Malcolm Turnbull was a Cabinet minister in the last Coalition government, he is best known in the UK as the lawyer in the Spycatcher trial and as the former chair of the Australian Republican Movement at the time of the Australian republic referendum, 1999. The latter point has led to some commenters on Conservativeinternational: Malcolm Turnbull is new leader of Australia's Liberals to question whether the Liberals can still be considered a sister party at all. This frankly says far more about blinkered opinions of what is and isn't "conservatism" than it does about the Australian Liberals.
At the end of the day modern conservatism around the world is not defined by attachment to some particular organ of government. Whilst most conservative parties differ on details due to differing national circumstances, most of them come down to common positions in terms of economics & taxation, the rule of law and a strong position on the world stage. There's no monarchy in that lot. Conservative politicians have committed acts of republicanism in the past, most notably when Stanley Baldwin forced Edward VIII's abdication (any choice or rejection of a head of state is republicanism) and I have no doubt that if this country does ever have a referendum on the subject we will see some Conservative party members at the forefront of a republic campaign. Malcolm Turnbull is no heretic in the international conservative family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
