The Forum > Article Comments > The Copernican Constitution > Comments
The Copernican Constitution : Comments
By David Latimer, published 29/7/2005David Latimer argues for a Copernican solution to a Australian republican model.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 29 July 2005 11:41:12 AM
| |
Um, so we would literally be electing a figure head? And in the process remove the last resort option for the disallowance of laws? Seems pretty silly to me, and I don't expect it to go over well. If it does happen then we'd better not be forced to vote in this popularity contest.
The common cause of republicanism is independence. This enough for minimalists ( on top of the basic conservatism argument) but supporters of direct election clearly want more. I'd like to think that who gets to shakes the hands of foreign leaders first is not the primary grievance, but instead an aversion to centralisation of power. The states can do whatever they like, if they want to set their governor via 2/3rds of Parliament, direct election, or even lotto then so be it. Posted by Deuc, Friday, 29 July 2005 2:58:43 PM
| |
In reply to Perseus:
The Copernican paradigm, or for that matter the republican movement in general, has nothing to do with the problem of decentralisation. Establishing a republic will not change the size of our capital cities. The states of Wyoming and Delaware, and the province of Saskatchewan were not created as a result of constitutional reform and furthermore, Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Scaling up the Australian population to the size of the United States and in doing so projecting a city of size 63 million does nothing to further anyone's case for a republic or the present system. I look forward to an actual comment about the article beyond your belief that the republican debate is unimportant. In reply to Deuc: Thanks for your comment. Let me assure you that the "last last resort option for the disallowance of laws" would still exist under s58 via the Governor-General. While some direct-election advocates support an executive presidency, most support a codified position with no real executive power. By definition direct-electionist support direct-election and that, plus the implication of popular sovereignty is the "more" they seek. Regardless, I am firmly of the view that greater public support will be found by establishing an apolitical yet democratically-chosen official and that is what the paradigm seeks to achieve. There is some symbolic decentralisation of power implicit in the model. Certainly, there is no prime ministerial dismissal which was a factor in the bi-partisan appointment model. Details on the point can be found at http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/ Of course, I disagree the states are unimportant. They cannot do what they want. Every citizen is also a citizen of their state and territory and the broad uniformity across state constitutional arrangements is not something to be lightly dismissed. Posted by David Latimer, Friday, 29 July 2005 4:12:10 PM
| |
Participating in Australian debates is an instant fun.
There are a few privileged "knowing the issue" and the rest is commons born to please and gratify their feudals by any way possible. Eventually, a great concern of the further sucking of funds from state coffins by possessing inherited posts at any level on a ground of self-imagined superiority-by-birth is a major issue of any Australian minder paid for providing “an idea on a way to a local head of state” if even such ancient as a Copernican opus Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 30 July 2005 3:40:16 AM
| |
David,
Personally I do not see any benifit in holding elections for this office. Unless the person is well known they do not have a chance to be governor, election upon popularity maybe a poor choice. 50% of the population are disinterested in persons who they do not know and who do not make executive decisions that will directly affect their lives. Quote, "There exists a fundamental similarity between the Copernican paradigm and current arrangements." So what is the point of change, other than to adopt the French word "Republic" and abandon the English term "Commonwealth". Both mean the same; so why change? Involving millions in a compulsory election that do not care about is an exercise in futility. Posted by Philo, Saturday, 30 July 2005 10:05:42 PM
| |
Dear Philo,
Firstly, let's me just confirm that the governor-general and state governors under the paradigm are not elected, but appointed by the Head of State, who is elected. Also, Australia would very much remain a Commonwealth. I won't claim in advance the level of interest future voters will take in the election, except to say that current polling shows only a republic with a directly-elected Head of State is likely to succeed. But your main question about the point of the change is a good one, so a big thank you for asking. Implementing the paradigm would achieve all that republicans expect out of such reform. The Australian constitutional system would be independent of Britain. The Australian People would be unambiguously sovereign, their authority deciding the Head of State and therefore above all executive officers, state and federally. This is achieved without affecting the existing strengths of Australia's flexible and robust democratic system, as you have quoted. The interest in this paradigm comes out of identifying the policy/political and ceremonial/unifying aspects of government. Under a constitutional monarchy these remain separate and there is, now, no reason why it can't continue under a republican system. The very people who are disinterested in politics are the very people I hope will be supportive of this apolitical office. (Of course some people are disinterested in everything, but what can be done about that?) And those with a political mindset will also be relieved that their Head of State works on neutral ground. I could go on about this (see http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/why.html), but I believe the outcome would be that Australian's would go about the business of electing their Head of State without much fuss or fanfare, but do so responsibly, knowing they are conferring a great honour on a distinguished person and expecting them to represent the values and achievements of Australia both overseas and to inspire and enthuse communities domestically and that is, indeed, the real point of it. Look at it this way. The Queen does it for the British! We'll have someone doing it for Australia! Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 31 July 2005 12:24:32 AM
|
Our capital cities are overburdened with infrastructure problems that increase in difficulty by multiplication rather than simple population addition. Along with unsustainable eurocentric landuse practices, we have also transplanted the anglo/european political state with a dominant metropolis that concentrates economic activity and all it's associated ecological and social impacts in one location.
This transplant took place long before any one asked, is it really the dominant purpose of a state to produce an ever bigger, uglier and less livable megopolis? But that is exactly what they are doing today.
They don't have this problem in Wyoming, Saskatchewan, Delaware, or a number of "new world" state entities that deliver superior representation to their own community of interest from small Capitals with less than 20% of their state population.
This dispersal of governance has been the key to effective North American decentralisation. It is the only way to maintain economic growth while simultaneously buying breathing space for the major cities. In contrast, NSW with 6.6 million people currently has one third of Australia's population with two thirds of that in Sydney. In the US context that would be a single state with 95 million and a city with 63 million. Hello? Is anyone home?