The republic debate

Like The Holden Republic, I watched the One News special on whether Prince Charles should become king of New Zealand last night. Like their other similar specials, it was more a quick overview of the issue than a detailed exploration, and there was very little in the way of actual debate. Instead, they flipped rapidly from talking head to talking head, each of whom said their own little spiel, without much reference to what others had said.

The point was made that we are essentially a de facto republic already, and that the sheer distance and disinterest of the monarch left us free to run our own lives. Much was made of the threat of the monarch's extensive powers (such as the power to dismiss Parliament or appoint judges) being vested in an elected president who as a political actor would be tempted to use them for political advantage - but no-one raised the obvious question in response: why have a president at all? People's thinking about a republic seems confined to the version where we simply replace the monarch and Governor-General with an elected president, but that's not the only way to do it. An alternative is the Swedish model, where the reserve powers are vested in the Speaker and their deputies, who are elected by a supermajority of Parliament. The Speaker is already required to be seen to be politically neutral by constitutional convention, and the supermajority requirement would strengthen this. It would also fit well with the consensual approach to politics encouraged by MMP, and would help shift things further in that direction.

(I should also point out that the problem of a rogue head of state is not simply a product of elections; it happened in Australia in 1975, when their Governor-General effectively colluded with the opposition to dismiss the Whitlam government. Stephen Franks got this arse-backwards, characterising it as a "rogue government" rather than a rogue Governor-General; I can only conclude that in his view, any left-wing government is by definition "rogue" and has no right to hold office...)

As usual, the biggest argument for retaining the monarchy was "if it ain't broke, din't fix it". Against this is the fact that "she's still there", by which I mean that the mere presence of the Queen (or the monarch in general) is a problem - not because it breaks the system, but because it is increasingly seen as simply incompatible with fundamental parts of the modern western worldview. To modern minds - those who have dragged themselves out of the eighteenth century - political authority flows from below; both legitimacy and even ultimately power is derived from the broad consent of the governed. Monarchy, with its top-down view of political authority, stands in direct contradiction to this. It also stands in direct contradiction to the meritocratic ideal that position and status must be earned rather than simply inherited. And while the Windsors have shown a laudable devotion to nobelesse oblige, it's not really the same thing...

But the most interesting point that came up was the generational difference in perceptions of nationhood. Monarchists tend to be older and greyer, dating from the era when we saw ourselves as a part of the British Empire, and the UK as "home". These views are generally not shared by the young, who are thoroughly indigenised and whose views of nationhood are rooted more in the anti-nuclear struggle and the Treaty than any sense of "Britishness". The current struggle over a republic is therefore part of the same process of generational change that is driving debates over the Treaty - and in the long-run, time is not on the monarchists' side.