Sic Semper Tyrannis

[4thofeleven]

So, the republican debate is back on the political agenda, with discussions of a new plebiscite on the issue in 2010, along side the next federal election. Of course, the monarchists are up in arms, though as usual, they're not actually contributing much to the debate other than shouting "HOW DARE YOU?!"

Now, full disclosure, I strongly support an Australian Republic. That's not why I dislike monarchists, though - the current Australian constitution works pretty well, and I can certainly understand people not wanting to make sweeping changes to it. Monarchists, though, aren't simply in favour of keeping the status quo - they're actively in favour of the specific situation of a foreign aristocrat being our head of state.

They also like to call those of us in favour of a republic with an elected head of state "elitists", thus proving that whatever meaning that word once had is long since gone...

I am curious as to whether there's much of a republican movement in Canada or New Zealand - I assume there would be, but I've never heard of any serious proposals in those countries.

Comments

[sunnyskywalker]

What does the Queen of England actually do for Australia, anyway? I've been under the impression that she doesn't even do much non-ceremonial work for England, but then, that's one of the gaping holes in my education. It seems like a weird setup, anyway.

They also like to call those of us in favour of a republic with an elected head of state "elitists"

As the Canadians would say, "Eh?"

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

Well, technically speaking, the Queen of England does nothing for Australia - the Queen of Australia is our head of state, and it's only a historical coincidence that she happens to be the same individual as the Queen of the UK, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of New Zealand, etc. Theoretically, you could have an Australian monarch who is not the British monarch, though since both countries have the same succession rules, that's never going to happen...

In practice, as the Queen does not reside in Australia, and never spends any significant period of time in Australia, her role is actually performed by the Governor-General, who serves as the Queen's representative in her absence, and does things like open parliament, sign legislation into law once it's passed through the senate, appoint ministers, and so on. I assume if the Queen could do this stuff personally if she was here, but even when she's here on state visits, she continues to delegate the responsibilities to the GG.

So basically, she or the Governor General - in theory - have all the powers and responsibility of a President, and act as head of our Executive branch. In practice, though, all these powers are exercised only after being 'advised' by the Prime Minister on what to do. Even the choice of a new Governor General is actually performed by the Prime Minister, though the Queen could - theoretically - overrule him if she disagreed with his choice. This has never happened, though King George V did request a second option back in the 1930s - the Australian PM refused to provide one *grin*.

So, even ignoring the symbolic issues, we've got the problem of one branch of government being based in another hemisphere, with its responsibilities being delegated to a person appointed directly by the legislature!

[sunnyskywalker]

That sounds like one of those crazy, super-involved setups you'd find in a fantasy novel. Not that I should talk, considering my state governor is a movie star famous for playing a robot assassin, but still.

This has never happened, though King George V did request a second option back in the 1930s

*snicker* It's a wonder more monarchs don't abdicate. What's the point?

[4thofeleven.livejournal.com]

Thus fulfilling Conan the Barbarian's prophesy that Conan would go on to rule a great kingdom in the west... *grin*

It gets wackier - George V only requested a second option because the British PM 'advised' him to ask for one. The Australian PM refused, arguing that the British PM had no right to advise the Australian monarch, and he may only advise George V when he's acting as British monarch...

Essentially, the monarch fulfils the same role as Elmer Fudd does in the 'Duck Season! Rabbit Season!' cartoons - theoretically, he's the guy with the gun, but effectively he just does whatever his 'prey' tell him to do.

[sunnyskywalker]

Ahaha! I guess some prophecies do come true :D We'd better make a movie about Queen Califia and her island of Amazons, then elect her next. The state's named after her; clearly, she should get it back!

Please tell me there's a Monty Python skit about George and his multiple monarchial personality problem. That would be awesome.