Yesterday was Queen's Birthday - the day we officially mark the nominal birthday of our distant monarch - and I thought it would be an excellent day to declare my support for a New Zealand republic. Unfortunately, I got distracted by sedition, so today will just have to do.
Why do I support a republic? Firstly, because I find the very idea of monarchy absurd. Thomas Paine, talking of the hereditary positions of the House of Lords, remarked that
[T]he idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate.
The same applies to the idea of a hereditary head of state. Quite apart from questions of talent, which admittedly matters far less now that monarchs reign rather than rule, political legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed, not who your parents were.
Secondly, because I want a political system that reflects that fact - that political legitimacy and authority stem from the consent of the governed. In a monarchy, legitimacy and authority flow from the top down, from birth, from tradition, or even supposedly from god. Currently, our democratic traditions are crufted on to this - the monarch has been forced, by threat of execution and having their sock budget cut off, to appoint as Ministers only those who hold the confidence of Parliament. But legally, their authority derives not from that Parliament or the people who elected it, but from the mystical source of the monarch. The only way of changing this is to do away with the monarchy, and replace them with a Head of State whose powers and authority are in turn derived from the people.
Thirdly, because for all practical purposes we already are one. While their authority supposedly derives from the monarch, our Governor-General is in practice appointed by the Prime Minister. While they have a theoretical power to refuse assent, it has never been used in New Zealand, or in the UK since 1708 - and any attempt to do so would result in a swift declaration of Parliamentary sovereignty. We should end the pretence and the myths, and instead adopt a constitution that both reflects political reality, and implements proper safeguards against abuse.
Despite the frothings of monarchists, a New Zealand republic would not mean "President Helen" exercising absolute power. The most common proposal for a republic is simply to twink out the monarch and Governor-General and replace them with an appointed or elected President exercising exactly the same powers. If we're not afraid of Silvia Cartwright or Anand Satyanand, then we have no reason to fear any republican successor. Neither would it mean an end to the Treaty; a republican government would inherit the obligations of the Treaty, just as it would inherit the obligations of membership in the UN and WTO, and indeed the entire corpus of New Zealand law. A change in constitution does not mean a legal and foreign policy tabula rasa.
But like most New Zealand republicans, I'm not in any hurry to change. The present monarch is distant, emasculated, and in consequence, fairly harmless, and any change mostly symbolic. More importantly, a constitutional change of this magnitude needs to be approved by the electorate, through a series of referenda, rather than imposed from the top down. So I'm content to wait until the numbers are there. According to the Holden Republic's collection of polls, support for a republic is slowly growing, and like most, I think we will eventually get there. The only question is when.
I doubt the republicans will get more than 81.5% or that the majority of voters will really understand the process. It should thus go to submissions and then be rejected by a select committee regardless (hopefully one that includes the queen). [Oh the sarcasm...]
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is:
ReplyDeleteHear, hear!
Genius - I've explained why that won't happen; a referendum on whether NZ should become a republic will probably be binding, like the MMP referendum was.
I'm as skeptical of republics as I am of monarchies, and happier with an emasculated constitutional monarchy than with an elective president. It's fairly difficult in the modern age to build a cult of personality around a crusty old monarchy, but it can be done around an elective president, and if that president has any power, loons will gravitate towards the position, and they'll often be the cunning sort of loon who hides their lunacy until after the bugger has been elected.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, what is a president but a return to the millenia-old position of an elective king, common in indo european societies back before several particularly strongman-type kings got sufficient power not to step down/be sacrificed.
king, queen, president, caesar, emperor, dictator, CEO, general, tzar, ayatollah, mufti?
They're all the bloody same - an atavistic urge to have a silverback at the head of the ape hierachy.
We're lucky enough that most of this urge has atrophied in NZ - our monarch is really useless (About as effective as Alf's Imperial Army), and our prime minister and governor general are grey public servants. There's utterly no need to open it up again and let the silverbacks back in.
One thorny problem you'll hit is that Maori society is currently engaged via the Treaty almost exlusively on the basis of "who your parets are", as it were. Attempts by so-called urban Maori to try and get a non-iwi framework for engaging with the government and claiing treaty compensation are pretty limited.
ReplyDeleteWV: There's no danger, though, in creating a position with no actual power, surely? Or vesting the signing of bills, etc, in the Speaker of the House, who's already bound that they have "neither eyes to see nor mouth to speak except as this house is pleased to direct". It also has other advantages in avoiding the Whitlam-type dismiss-a-government-on-a-whim situation.
ReplyDeleteWe have an ineffectual head of state who is unelected and therefore not a magnet to the sort of loons that elective heads of state fall prey to. This ineffectual head of state is represented by an almost ineffectual governor general, generally assigned as a party favour to deserving locals, and all this position needs is their ability to dismiss parliaments removed (Wouldn't want a Whitlam, I guess) to be completely powerless.
ReplyDeleteSo, sappho, I reckon it's easier to keep our current useless head of state (perhaps with any Whitlam-causing teeth pulled), than it is to bother making a _new_ useless head of state.
WV: It's difficult for anyone to build a cult of personality anywhere - monarchy or republic.
ReplyDeleteThe monarch is only useless because they choose to be - but more importantly, their functions (in NZ at least) are devolved to the G-G, via the reserve powers.
The G-G is appointed (and fired) de jure by the PM. The G-G most certainly isn't useless, and they do indeed weild significant power - the Whitlam example is proof of this. And no, removing the ability of the G-G to dismiss Parliament won't solve the problem at all. You've got to give the powers to someone (or thing).
Republicans in NZ thus want to ensure that the G-G (or a future titular Head of state) is indeed restrained in their use of their 'reserve powers'. I don't think we're in too much disagreement on that...
What the heck is wrong with what we have? The republicans will destroy Aotearoa as we know it!
ReplyDeleteIf we have a referendum and you fail, will you keep up, or cry like the aussies?
Anon - I've just given several reasons.
ReplyDeleteNo, we won't cry, as the Aussie republicans didn't. They know that the Australian republic want a republic, they just had an unco-operative PM who derailed the whole process.