The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ancient laws reign in new land > Comments

Ancient laws reign in new land : Comments

By George Williams, published 16/2/2005

George Williams argues that the British Monarchy needs to move with the times regarding royal marriages.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It may just be the circles in which I move, but nobody I know gives half a thought to whether our ultimate figurehead is a monarch or a president. I know that none of them has a clue whether, or how, their lives would change if Australia became a republic, but I'd wager a few bob they'd say "not a lot".

If the topic is raised at all, at its deepest point it turns out to be just a style thing. Any preference one way or the other, for royalty or republic, is worn as a look-at-me badge. Nothing more than a personal fashion statement, like double-breasted suits or tongue-piercings.

Most republicans I know are idealist rather than realist. Strangely, so are the monarchists, which more or less guarantees that apathy will continue to be the deciding, or non-deciding factor.

This debate about the political and constitutional ramifications of two people getting married on the other side of the world is of moment only to people who earn a living from it. Journalists, constitutional lawyers (whatever they may be), politicians (who will use it to posture, as usual) and commentators. The rest of us couldn't give the proverbial fig.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 17 February 2005 12:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QED
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 February 2005 4:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Pericles, there are many thousands of people who are not in your 'circle' that do give more than half a thought to whether our ultimate figurehead is a royal or a president. For example, what of the Aussie taxpayer's million or so dollars to pay for Prince Charles' expenses (and his entourage of 17) to visit Australia in the coming weeks, and if the media is correct, on a visit that he invited himself to partake in? One million dollars for a one-week junket?

Our future king is little more than an increasingly unpopular figurehead - a billionaire with short arms and long pockets. It is totally immoral that the hardworking people of this country should have to cough up for these costs - no wonder he has money in the bank! Let's put our million dollars to use where it will benefit our sick, our aged, our road system...

TrueBlue
Posted by TrueBlue, Sunday, 20 February 2005 4:36:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrueBlue, I cannot disagree with a word you write. But if the best reason you can find for changing our entire system of government is that we waste a million on a royal visit, you have probably illustrated why the last campaign on the republic failed. Wasting our money is not confined to events such as this, nor is wastage likely to reduce or disappear should we make a change. It will just find another sink-hole, such as gold travel passes for a presidential entourage. Unfortunately, the Australian people are so familiar with the elite having their noses in the trough, whether government flunkies, so-called captains of industry or visiting royalty, the argument has absolutely no impact any longer
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 20 February 2005 10:41:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is daft to suggest that we should cut our ties with the monarchy because the royal family is wealthy and privileged. After all, there is no chance at all of an elected Australian President being drawn from the ranks of the poor and the underprivileged. Presidential elections select candidates who can pay for expensive campaigns, which is much more likely to guarantee wealth than honesty.

As for the idea that a head of state should be chosen on merit, no one has ever worked out how that could be done. If anyone knows a way of selecting candidates on merit, rather than on popularity, political skills or campaign funding, why don’t we test it in our parliamentary elections first, rather than on choosing a figurehead?

The worst argument of all is the one about representation, or the symbolism of representation. It is not the role of the monarch to represent, just as it is not the role of a High Court judge to represent. If we demand to elect a head of state, then why not elect judges too? They have a far greater direct impact on our daily lives. Fact is, we are governed by our elected representatives in parliament, and if we feel there is a representation deficit then we should deal with it there, where it matters most.

What’s more, elections always create winners and losers: those who get the representation they want and those who don’t. Electing a head of state would ensure that a large proportion of the population was explicitly not represented. Why replace a system that stands equally for all with one that will always create a sense of exclusion?

To argue that Australians need an Australian head of state is pure parochialism. By that logic, South Australians need a South Australian head of state, Melbournians need a Melbournian head of state, residents of Bondi need a resident of Bondi as head of state. Take that to its ultimate conclusion, and I cannot be properly represented unless I am president myself, because all the others would be from “somewhere else”. I’m glad people aren’t always so keen on thinking small.

A bit more than a century ago, our ancestors were able to look beyond their borders and say “I am from Queensland, you are from Tasmania, she is from Western Australia, but what holds us together is stronger than what pulls us apart”. I find it astonishing that republicans can now look across the Tasman to New Zealand or across the Pacific to Canada or around the globe to the UK and say “we have so little in common with you that we cannot possibly share a head of state. Whatever Australia’s place in the world may be, we are sure that it has nothing to do with you”.

Federation was about moving beyond existing limits, looking outwards, expanding horizons: the 21st century equivalent is to move closer to countries – like New Zealand, Canada and the UK– that share our basic values an institutions. Republicanism is the opposite of the federation spirit: it looks inwards, it emphasises differences, it reinforces divisions. Most nations are striving to build up closer ties: the republican movement is intent on cutting them. Most people are seeing the value of working together: the republican movement somehow can’t bear to look beyond its own shores.

The sad truth is that “the republic” is about symbolism, and what it symbolises is small-mindedness, isolation and parochialism.
Posted by Ian, Monday, 21 February 2005 2:36:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice post Ian, some positive points on retaining the status quo, as opposed to my negative ones.

The saddest aspect of it all is that we don't have - and probably never will have - a statesman with sufficient moral and intellectual stature to craft a workable and realistic alternative. Which is unfortunate, if only because the current system seems to work by default, rather than by design.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 5:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy