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.

QED

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

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

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.

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.

Wow Pericles, I feed some of your own words back to you and now I'm advocating for a republic?? Isn't squandering public monies on fun and good times enough reason to demand a change of figurehead?

Last time I looked, it was the British sovereign who got a mention in the Aussie constitution and not her son - and until that day arrives (God forbid!) and there is little or no choice remaining for the taxpayer, he should pay his own way like everyone else does. And for me, the lack of morality this man shows in this one situation alone is enough to hope that he buys the-love-of-his-life Camilla a villa in France and moves over there permanently...

And on symbolism Ian, isn't Queen Elizabeth II our symbolic head of state? Off your virtual soapbox Dude, a nice rave but one that doesn't make a lot of logic.

TrueBlue

Yes, TrueBlue, Queen Elizabeth II is our symbolic head of state, oddly enough. The good thing is that this symbol stands for institutional, cultural and historic ties with a global family of countries that I would like to draw Australia closer to. The republican symbol – a president – stands for separating Australia from that family of countries, something that I see as sad and parochial.

Australia and New Zealand, for example, are already very close. We can move freely between the two countries, our economies are extremely integrated, and I hope that we can continue move towards agreement on a single currency and eventual federation. Surely this whole process is greatly simplified by the fact that we have the same symbolic head of state.

I would also like to see the same situation emerge with Canada. If we can benefit by expanding Australia’s 20 million people to the 24 million or so of the ANZ domestic economy, why not go for the even greater economies of scale of a 55 million strong CANZ domestic economy? The same freedom of movement of people and investments that we have with New Zealand, but expanded to the other side of the Pacific. Once again, the process would be greatly simplified by having the same symbolic head of state, because what it symbolises is the great similarity between our institutions and values.

The whole nonsense of “an Australian head of state” just limits our view of the world. We need to think bigger, not smaller, and the monarchy – bizarre and anachronistic as it is – should actually make it easier for us to do that.