Congratulations, David, on an excellent article. Like many people I am still hazy about what drives republicans; it certainly can't be honesty, integrity or sincerity, as was demonstrated on Tuesday, when the new Senate members were sworn in in Canberra. The sight of the commited, hard core republicans in the group getting up and swearing, on Oath, that they would be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, made me want to vomit.

Long live Her Majesty!

David Latimer has proposed an Honourary President model which attempts to keep the President/HoS above politics. He has more detail on his website, and has published articles here and on South Sea Republic on the issue.

The Swiss civil war produced no more than one hundred deaths, and resulted in a federal constitution being accepted. So that claim of instability in relation to Switzerland is weak.

The US Civil War was much more violent, and a result of federal over-reach into state soveriegnty. It is also easy to forget how close Australia came to Civil War in the 1930 when the Federal Government and NSW faced off with Lang and Lyons not willing to give into each other. This was about Federal over-reach again, as the federal government had unwritten state loans.

If Lang had of told Game that he didnt recognize the Governor's power to dismiss him, or his government, then it would have been Civil War. The Lighthorse had been moved to outside of Canberra, and the military in Sydney instructed to take over State government buildings. There were also militias from both sides roaming the state, not to mention the NSW Police who backed Lang.

The Westminster system is not immune to instability on the "civil war" scale. [rest in another comment so I dont get cut off by the 350 word limit]

I would also argue that our Governors and Governor-Generals already have political roles. Just because they arent as publicly obvious as the MPs role, they have a political role nonetheless, and one that has distinct repercussions. The largest ones are Kerr's and Game's decisions. But there are many other examples, Munro-Ferguson allowing the first double-dissolution election, Campbell not dismissing Bjelke-Peterson's ministry, etc.

Any form of Republican Constitution in Australia will face two realities. One, it must incorporate the Westminster style of Cabinet Government. Two, the HoS will have to be elected. This is because the people want to choose their head of state.

The latter will ensure that the Governor-General has a greater political role, however, as mentioned in the article, cabinet government will fail if the GG and PM fight over executive power. Since the Westminster has such poor seperation of powers, it is probably inevitable.

As a result the GG must be given clear political powers that the PM does not already have. The gaping hole in the Australian system is the Bill of Rights. We dont have one, and the people have no-one in government looking out for their rights.

An elected Governor-General is ideal for this role. The GG would be our representative for political rights in government. The GG would be politically respsonsible (and culpable) for ensuring no legislation received their signature which contravened an Australian Bill of Rights.

The best Bill of Rights on the planet atm is this one;

http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2005/2/18/103910/881

This is what the GG would be charged with protecting by vetoing legislation that intrudes on it. By the same token, super-majorities in the Senate and House would be able to over-ride the GG and place the onus on the Judicial to allow the legislation as constitutional.

As far as Australia is concerned, the best model for a republic is no republic. The monarchy costs us nothing apart from the rare royal visit. It is stable and we don’t need more politicians and urgers than we already have. We don’t have to concern ourselves about the ‘born to rule’ problem as our elected governments advise the monarch. The relationship gives us our own successful version of the Westminster system at arms length, without interference from non-Australians. The Queen’s hats don’t concern us; nor do some of the twits who might succeed her, in any practical terms.

There has never been a clamour from the Australian people for a republic. The urging from the top by politicians and the ‘upper’ echelons of society was treated with the suspicion and annoyance that it deserved

I think republic or not, our system of government is inherently undemocratic. Once every couple of years we are subjected to advertising and fear campaigns to influence us to vote for one party or the other. Political parties get the money to run these campaigns from companies, who naturally expect something in return. Is this truly democratic?

Personally I think the question of republicanism is moot – it doesn’t address the major problems of our current system. Let’s start by banning political advertising. How about instead an AEC monitored website where parties can provide information about their policies and plans should they be elected – and a history of how the party/individual members have voted on issues brought before the parliament/senate. And for those who don’t have access to or don’t like the internet, something equivalent available in all public libraries. Allow people to make informed decision.

Or dare I go one step further… People presently take more interest in and have more influence over the goings on in the Big Brother house. Our representative form of government exists because of the total impracticality of every member of society voting on every issue. Is it still so impractical? We appear to have the technology to allow people across the country (and indeed the world) to vote on completely frivolous decisions. Sure, the system’s security would need to be seriously bumped up, but for the possibility of a real democracy…

Not likely to happen in my lifetime, but it’s an exciting idea.

no one mention of USA ? but then again, history isn't one your strengths is it DF.