“What is the Indian secret of success? I believe it is the way in which the country elects a president. Every five years a new president is elected at a Presidential Convention. The electors are not just the Federal Parliament, but every member of every state and regional parliament.”

So, the country does not, in fact, elect a president. It is politicians who elect a president.

Hardly democratic!

It’s no good saying, “But the people elect the politicians who elect the president”, because the people, like Australians, are able to elect only those politicians put forward by political parties – i.e. the cronies of party members.

Already, unless we vote for an independent politician, we have to vote for some rube put up by the party we favour. This is why we continue to get the same sort of dropkicks in government that we do.

Why on earth would we allow these same dropkicks to foist another snout in the trough on us?

We are poorly enough served now by so-called elected politicians. We don’t need another strata of stupidity by way of a president.

Firstly, there is an error in the article. Her Majesty's representatives in the States are known as her Governors, not Governors-General.

That said, the article totally fails to come to grips with the central point of the whole republic question - that of the new political divide, which is between the elite and the people. As recently demonstrated in Ireland, where the entire business and political elite failed to persuade the people to endorse the Lisbon Treaty, the new battleground is no longer between left and right, but between the elite and the people. I suppose it is understandable that politicians in Australia do not wish to acknowledge what the people really think of them, but the failure to do so simply means that we will forever repeat the process of having constitutional referenda proposed and defeated. I would suggest that proponents of a republic ponder the statement from a Broken Hill miner in 1993 (a solid Labor voter), which I think was the best comment on the republic:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

Those interested in constitutional reform should consider those likely to meet with the approval of the people, otherwise it will be an exercise in futility. One worthy of consideration would be to have a compulsory additional candidate in each seat at an election, which would be VACANT. VACANT would have votes and preferences like any other candidate, and if VACANT wins, the seat would not be filled. In addition, VACANT would vote NO in all divisions, could not resign before the next election, and would not draw salary or expenses.

Another possible reform would to provide for electors to become registered to a particular party. This would mean that they wouldn't have to turn up to vote, as their vote would go automatically to the registered party. They would, of course, be able to change their registration right up to the close of the poll. In referendums, you could register for YES or NO, without having heard the question.

Pigs might fly!

what really gets up my nose about Australian politics is this; If we vote for greens, the hidden agenda is Gay rights. If we on the other hand long for a change of government and vote Labor; have a guess what, here comes the republic. Save your energy you pro dictator lobby. It will never happen in this country. We are too smart to be ripped-off by the pro lobby. But run it passed us all again for proof if you wish.

Now the history lesson. Since when was the Roman empire ever a Democracy? It only ever waged wars and defended boarders throughout its whole history. When was that ever undertaken with a view to Democracy and by the use of Democratic means. Even in its death throws when subjected to domination by Papal authority was that period ever Democratic?

Now the French, could history be any more mad? Would Chris Gollis have Australia trudge down a similar path . I think the count of rolling heads was 250,000 in a three year period.
India…Far out! And the USA and its current globalized rampaging “Mad man” President George W Bush?
God save the Queen (Woops, whose God)? And ra,ra,ra

As an ex-pat Aussie I am sending all Aussies a message of hope and reflection.
I would never vote for a republic in Australia because of some very simple reasons.
1. The status of Australia at the moment is so successful in consideration of most other countries that it brings the old adage "If it ain't broke don't fix it" to mind.
2. The most serious reason not to vote for a republic is the membership of those that form the Republican block. I just have to remember the disaster of the first big debate about this and I watched all of the 2 weeks and it was just unbelievable what these fools were saying and what is worse they were totally disorganized. These people would have us believe that they could wright a new Australian constitution when they can not even agree about the simplest things. That in itself is a joke and I do not want that joke on me.
Most of these people in the Republican movement are ideologists that really have no grounding in detailed reality. That is a big problem.
3. Although I do not have any strong relationship to the Queen of England it is not her that I like but the established and very tested administration that this has given us. A stable and tried and true system that these Republicans want to reinvent in a few short months. Absolutely ridiculous concept. Instead of wasting millions of dollars on this stupid pursuit Australia should spend its dollars on energy solutions and defense systems against the obvious coming conflicts of the world's future. Its time to get your collective heads out of the sand and face the reality that is coming. I can just imagine what would happen under the new REGIME!

plerdsus

"Firstly, there is an error in the article. Her Majesty's representatives in the States are known as her Governors, not Governors-General."

Not so, State Governors are Lieutenants-Governor.

All,

-1- The underlying issue here is sovereignty (ahem). Australia is no longer an extension of Britain.

The latter was a mercantilist colonising country. This stituation was when Britain was "Great" Britian. But in the twentieth century she didn't even pay her war debts. And still hasn't!

Moreover, Britain represents an Old World structure from medieval times. It still has a House of Lords!

Her political agenda is fusion with Europe; yet, she hedges her position, via the remnants of the Commonwealth. The Monarchy is kernel to this action.

Lastly, we all know, history's greatest fool, Winston Churhill, would allow Australia fall and later, perhaps, to be retaken.

Britain, fair enough, interested in - Britain. She couldn't eben defend herself. In contrast, Australia is a new world country with great potential in twenty-first century, as noted by Ronald Regean.

What is a monarchy? Basically, medieval oligarchical familialism.

Besides, under globalisation and as a result of immigration, Australia is a regional Asian power, it isn't England.

- Britain represents sunset. Australia sunrise.

-2- The idea of having a power above politics is a good one. This can be achieved with a G-G modelled on the present system, wherein, the power to return a government to the people is held a president in council with members of the High Court of Australia. Parliament and the Courts are held accountable to a Bill of Rights administered by the Courts.

- We can have the same safe-guards unto ourselves

Oliver,

Wrong. States have both a Governor and a Lieutenant-Governor to fill in when the Governor is not available.