That is the power of an idea whose time has come, David. The New England referendum failed due to the blind assumption that a State must be dominated by a city, al la France and UK. An act of self determination is only sensible if it is conducted by those who seek it. That mistake will not be made again.

Good (state boundary) fences make good neighbours. The farmers of the US Mid-West all trade their commodities in Chicago but they write their legislation, develop their policies and fund their outlays in Helena and Cheyenne.

Gentle, men…
The glaringly obvious impossibility of an ‘elected yet apolitical Australian head of state, symbolic of the sovereignty of the people’ is what alerts me in David’s writing. It articulates the regular, traditional (dare I say masculinist) slippage into the story of metaphysical signifier of the political identities and wills of embodied persons. The body politic, triumphally disembodied yet again! It doesn’t work, we are all grossly and variously embodied, with all that implies – show me a symbol of embodiment David, and I’ll always be able to show the subordinate ‘other’ from whom it draws the affirmation of its (disembodied) self-definition. It’s an experience of escaping the literal bodies of political subjects (cf D. Leder, The Absent Body). As he would suggest, at least when pain and dysfunction hit, we are all forced to acknowledge the ‘congealed’ experience of our embodiment: in your picture, the elected cut-out would be simply a reflection of hidden agendas, perhaps(witness Dubya) more dangerous than any monarch.
Anna

Reply to Perseus:

You've got my 2 cents, now lets get back to the topic, OK.

Reply to Anna:

Thank you for your comment.

One of the reasons it's called the Copernican Paradigm is to remind republicans to avoid thinking in terms of the obvious. It was once glaringly obvious that the sun circles the earth! Elections are famously used to resolve political issues, but this does not mean the reverse, that politics is a result of holding elections.

I chose the words "symbolic of the sovereignty of the people" very carefully. The words DO NOT mean that the Head of State has sovereign authority as the Queen does.

Sovereignty is a metaphysical concept and under the paradigm, the Head of State is an example or reminder that it is possessed by each and every citizen. The governors are subordinate to this sovereignty and the Prime Minister and Premiers subordinate again, at the very least in terms of their executive authority. Symbolism is ultimately a means of communication and in this case articulates that the institutions of government serve us.

Your final comment seems rather unfounded if we take history as our guide or if we have a belief in democratic principles. Nevertheless, if a Copernican model was implemented the Australian constitution would remain fundamentally different from its US counterpart.

A very good point, Anna. The greatest value of the monarchy, from the perspective of the ordinary citizen (subject) is their total incapacity to convert the office into a seat of either legitimately exercised power or abused power. Any elected head of state has varying degrees of this power which is implicit in the vote. Apart from the public appearances, the actual job could be done by Bugs Bunny or a virtual monarch. But the act of regularly choosing the candidate is nothing more than a surrogate for real participation in the processes of governance. A process made much more likely in Small States reflecting communities of interest. There you go, David, you should thank me for bringing your article into the "most discussed" category.

Dear Perseus,

Firstly, yes, let me thank you for putting my article in the most discussed list and secondly for your most interesting post.

Your point about monarchy is sound. If republicanism is to succeed then the proposed reform must prevent the Head of State from assuming actual power or the proponent must admit they are moving to a executive presidency to some degree.

My efforts are directed towards a Head of State who is prevented from exercising power and believe I have a framework for succeeding, but there's a lot more analysis to do before this goal has been attained.

Interesting point about "Bugs Bunny". David O'Brien (see article) often mentions "Daryl Summers" in jest. Someone else said "a troupe of ballet dancers". A submission to the Senate Inquiry suggested a virtual president drawn by lot, who didn't even know who he or she was. At the SouthSeaRepublic site comments were drawn to a similar idea (see http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2005/7/3/154653/3937)

I would argue that the true value of the Queen is her capacity to promote the United Kingdom both internationally and internally -- its traditions, industry, tourism and importantly, it's community spirit. Today, even with our governors, there is far less capacity for this in Australia.

This is why the Australian Head of State shouldn't be a shared monarch, a virtual president, a lottery winner or some other inconsequential institution. Neither should it be an executive, activist or guardian president.

This is why I am proposing an institution separate from the business of government, who is nevertheless consequential via election and nature of tenue. In finding this forgotten niche, republicanism can be shown to be worthwhile beyond formal independence and anti-monarchical sentiment.

In the 1970s, Australians lost their status and rights as British subjects, apparently because our government of the day believed that we were no longer a British country. Perhaps our leaders were under the mistaken impression that Britishness was a category based on ethnicity, rather than one based on values, institutions and culture. Or perhaps it was just a stroke of silly provincial nationalism.

In the 1980s, Prince Charles indicated that he was keen to serve Australians as our Governor General, and was rather brusquely turned down, perhaps because our government believed that our future King was incapable of representing our present Queen, despite his fondness for the country where he went to school. Or perhaps it was just another stroke of silly provincial nationalism.

Now, David, you argue that “the true value of the Queen is her capacity to promote the United Kingdom”. After the way the relationship has been conducted from our end all these years, I can’t help but find it a touch ironic that our monarch and her family are now criticised for the promotion of purely UK interests rather than those of the other realms. That’s a little bit like putting the dog out in the rain and then complaining that it is wet.

We can’t simply undo these decades of deliberate drifting apart, but surely the answer is not to isolate ourselves even further, but to rebuild what we have frittered away. What would the Australian people say about reversing this trend? Given our collective response to Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark, I rather suspect that if William or Harry were to marry an Australian girl they would kill the republic stone dead in the time it takes to say “glossy magazine”.