Philo, you should be directing that to me.

General election hinge on both policy and personality, at the national and local levels. Parliamentary candidates communicate policy and the governments record.

The task for republicans (and it is certainly incomplete) is to devise an electoral system which has no policy focus. The HOS does not have a policy and cannot implement policy. Hence the election hinges on personality.

A HOS electoral system is related to the nomination process. The funding question is crucial. The voting system is crucial. Media rules may be needed (and can they be enforced?)

So there is plenty of work do do here for republicans. In fact, thats how I usually conclude my articles.

Hi Scout,

When I think of “the British world”, I am not thinking of the whole Commonwealth. I support the strengthening of the Commonwealth as a whole, but I do not propose closer political ties with the whole organisation, because I do not feel that we all share the same core values and institutions. I would not, for example, think of Papua New Guinea or Lesotho as being essentially British. Barbados? The Bahamas? I don’t know. But my experience does tell me that Canada, Australia and New Zealand share a basic British cultural and institutional core that makes them very similar in important ways.

(I am not saying that this is a matter of unmixed pride. I recognise the sad truth that the CANZ countries derive their fundamental britishness from the fact that their indigenous populations were reduced to minorities in their own land. I do not, however, believe that we can resolve the troubled relationship of mainstream Australia with the country’s Aboriginal peoples unless we fully acknowledge both the good and bad aspects of our British heritage.)

When I talk of the possibility of closer ties with “the British world”, I am thinking primarily of CANZUK, and the kind of ties I have in mind are similar to – and an extension of – the ones we already have with New Zealand: reciprocal rights to live, study and work in each other’s countries, reciprocal social security arrangements, free trade, and so on. How far this could eventually go is an entirely open question. The EU has shown the strengths and limitations of an integration based on geography rather than values: perhaps CANZUK could experiment with an integration based on cultural affinity.

I agree with you that Australia’s constitutional relationship to the monarchy is pretty irrelevant to strengthening the Commonwealth. In terms of closer links between the CANZ countries, I agree that it is not essential, but I personally find it symbolically positive. Others will obviously disagree with my reading of the symbolism, and others still will reject any notion of closer ties. So be it.

Ian

Many thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you say and understand your reasons. However, with the shrinking of our world - in economic and political terms and the diverse nature of Australian culture - I see our 'Britishness' as increasingly less relevant.

Philo - ditto David Latimer's post.

David L. - have book marked your Website http://www.copernican.info/

Cheers

An elected Australian as HOS would pose certain problems, since the successful candidate would be chosen on personality above all else. Ray-bloody-Martin for President, Oh Yeah!

The method of appointment isn't the main issue, it's the symbolism that counts. The Australian head of state simply doesn't represent Australians, so what's the point of having one?

Amazing how so many respondents play the man & not the ball. How many articles have you submitted to OLO Plerdsus, Opinionated, Leigh et al?

I like the Queen of Australia too, she has nice hats and is very kind to her corgis.
I am glad the electorate rejected a republic, the proposal was unclear (different factions of 'republicans' had different ideas) and it was a jingoistic kneejerk by a pompous left wing intelligentsia. If memory serves me, the proposal wasnt supported by a majority in ANY state, let alone a majority.
I know defeated Republicans like to blame the Prime Minister for asking exactly WHAT model of Republic they proposed (there are such a range to choose from- eg Peoples Republic of China)rather than recognising their inability to demonstrate the need for change from a perfectly functional stable system. Republicans need to recognise their shortcomings and reflect on them before trying again.

As for the requirement of democracy that politicians be selected on 'merit not heredity'I wish this were true: Beazley,and Downer followed in daddys footsteps and seem to have found the shoes too big to fill- family connections, party faction and gender often count more than merit.

Voldemort

Scout,

I felt the same about Australia’s “Britishness” until I lived in Brazil: I had always thought “Australia is not really British anymore – we are multicultural now”. In fact, I had always thought of “British” as referring to the United Kingdom as it currently stands, but Brazil taught me to see it as a cultural grouping comparable with “Latin”.

Although “Latin” culture is seen as deriving from the area that is now the Italian province of Lazio, most people would agree that Spain, Mexico and Brazil are all “Latin countries”, and that Italy is not more “Latin” than the others. They have developed very different cultures from that common heritage, but they still recognisably share certain important cultural traits. In the same way, the CANZ countries share important cultural traits with each other and with the UK, which used to be the centre of the British Empire. The only name we have to describe those traits is “British”.

Yes, Australia is multicultural, but so is Brazil: the difference is that Brazil is multicultural but also undeniably Latin, whereas Australia (like Canada) is multicultural but also undeniably British. Brazilian multiculturalism is built on a Latin framework, so everyone more or less adapts and fits into a set of Latin values and institutions.
Our multiculturalism, on the other hand, is built on a British framework. Looking from the outside, it seems clear to me that our values and institutions remain fundamentally British, and that this is the mould within which our multiculturalism is built.

This is merely to explain what I mean when I talk about Australia being British: I do not mean that we are in any sense indebted to Britain as it stands today, but that the British cultures of Australia, of New Zealand, of Canada and of the United Kingdom itself are all indebted to our common (and very recent) past. In the same way, the Latin cultures of Brazil, Mexico, Spain and Italy are all indebted to their more distant common past.

Whether you or anyone else sees this as important is obviously another matter.