Response to Perseus:

Thanks for your two posts.

Your support for Citizen Initiated Referendum is shared by many republicans, but can be treated as a separate issue. I believe most Australians would not be interested the trade-off you propose. Republican reform will pass or fail on its own merits.

In the second post, you provide a list of specific community issues which ARE connected to both the quality of government and the strength of Australian civic society (ie non-governmental). Within the Republican Movement, I am working to emphasise the point that the direct and indirect connections between the highest level of government and the community in general are important.

For example, I attended a presentation by NSW Governor Marie Bashir to encourage support for the Save Sight Institute, of which I am now a member. Few politicians would have the reputation or background to be so influential.
(see http://www.eye.usyd.edu.au/news/lecture/invite.html)

I am not discouraged that some may regard my efforts, or those of my colleagues, as mere distractions. This is purely political thinking, whereas my efforts are directed towards enhancing apolitical institutions.

And a Response to Ian:

Just to clarify and as outlined in the article, if the Copernican paradigm is implemented the one Head of State would appoint all six state governors. No state would need its own Head of State and hence the principles our Federation would be reaffirmed. That's one of the reasons why I use the analogy to Copernicanism.

I am starting to worry that in abridging the original article, some of its clarity has been lost – there was a lot to fit into the space provided. If so, my apologies. To brush up on the main points, see the Honorary President Republican Model at http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/intro/apex.html

David,

What I was trying to get at is that much rejection of the monarchy is driven by parochialism. It is based on a narrow view of the world and a narrow definition of who is “us”. For me, this would contradict the spirit of our Federation.

A century ago, people from our six states were able to look beyond their borders and work together to build something stronger. At the time, transport and communications were so much slower than they are now that even New Zealand felt just too far away to be part of the project.

Now that those limitations of distance have largely been overcome, we should be looking forward to the next step. We should be striving to build a global federation, starting with the core Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK: CANZUK.

Unfortunately, the republican movement takes the opposite view from that of the leaders of Federation: instead of looking beyond existing borders and thinking big, they want to restrict our view of the world, cut ties with other countries, think small.

If our people had been that parochial a century ago, there would be no Australia. Giving in to republican parochialism now would mean being stuck as a little country of 20 million in a world where everyone else is moving closer.

You mistakenly attribute a call for citizen initiated referenda to me, David. I made no such call. You are correct in stating that the issues I raised as being more important than the republican ideal, "provide a list of specific community issues which ARE connected to both the quality of government and the strength of Australian civic society (ie non-governmental)". But you then wrongly induce the reader to assume that republicanism is even vaguely connected to, or is a synonym for, "quality of government and the strength of civic society".

The quality of any government and the strength of any civic society is primarily determined by the capacity to focus and effectively apply collective effort on meeting the priorities of the governed. It is not determined by some implied desire on the part of a self absorbed minority to respond to a manufactured need. That list of things that a republic will not do could have been a great deal longer.

Response to Ian:

Your idea is quite interesting, especially in relation to Australia and New Zealand, which could have easily joined in Federation. But would Australians be interested in having a New Zealander as a joint Head of State or visa versa? How to manage the balance between the larger Australia and the smaller New Zealand?

As the nations are relatively close there'd be only modest dilution of the advantages in having a local Head of State and a justifiable link between the nations would be established.

There is a lot to think about in your idea and a number of technical and political hurdles. Perhaps as the profile of Copernican paradigm rises, Republicans will be encouraged to explore these possibilities.

Have you had any reaction from others?

Response to Perseus:

The quality of government and strength of civic society could be assessed by a variety of means. Without wanting to sound too critical, I would say your mechanism is too narrow and utilitarian, as though community is primarily a sequence of problem identification and solution. But even allowing for this, its hard to see where your argument is going, given that you seem to be satisfied with my response ("You are correct...") to a criticism you go on to repeat ("the list of things... is longer".) I genuinely look forward to being set straight again in your next post.

NOTE

If you have arrived at this page from the REPUBLICAN ROUND-UP the main article is:

The Copernican Constitution
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703

Sometimes I think that ardent Republicans have a subconscious dislike of the British. Some of my ancestors came from Scotland at the instigation of Dunmore Lang, and settled on Andrew Lang’s property on the Hunter. They could only speak Gaelic and their religion was Scottish John Knox free Presbyterian.

I can still recall my Grandfather being English and my Grangmother being Scottish arguing over Dunmore Lang's Republican views. There was a racial tension expressed between them. My Scottish ansestors gave protection to bonny Prince Charlie to avoid his capture by the English. I think the Irish have an equal dislike of the British, and wonder if Irish Catholics in Australia have fostered some of the Republican sentiments.

I am Australian and find no conflict or reason for having her Majesty Elizabeth as Queen of Australia. May her role continue. Long live the Queen! Long live the Queen!