God defend us from republicans
Topic is Politics, Society by Brian Mackie | Print it |There’s an olde English ale called Greene King. It’s still brewed and enjoyed in the UK.
But the nearest we’ll come to a Green King is Charles III, Defender of the Faith and Protector of the Albatross.
There’s another ancient British beer called Theakston’s Old Peculiar, rarely seen in New Zealand, but always welcome.
What we do have is the old peculiar debate about republicanism, which has reared its one-eyed head again.
It only takes something as mundane and forgettable as the centenary of Dominion Day to start all those pseudo-intellectuals and xenophobes nattering and waffling again and, ours being a peculiarly free country, the airwaves and newspaper columns are wide open to them.
Amongst all the angst and downright irrelevant diatribes, none of these so-called constitutional experts appears to have noticed that we’re doing quite nicely as we are.
We don’t have a crazy or stupid president such as George Bush or Robert Mugabe or any of those South American and Eastern European fruitcakes. We don’t have Vlad the Impaler Putin, or a mad King George III ruling by Divine Right either, so there’s no risk of an invasion such as that which created the USA. And do we really want to be like the French, who slaughtered their monarchs and have suffered corruption at the top ever since The Reign of Terror?
What we do have is a link to 1000 years of history and a benign and fabulously rich lady who rarely visits, costs us nothing and probably wishes us well. She (and the UK) usually do us no harm, and gave up interfering in our affairs decades ago. The French and Americans, in particular, are green with envy that Britain has a Royal Family that provides stability because it is part of (and makes) history, but has no political clout.
They only have tawdry opportunists who last a few years before the sleaze catches up.
From day to day, 99.9 percent of New Zealanders get on with their lives, with barely a thought about a presidential republic. The Lord knows, we have quite enough problems coping with MMP, directionless government, Single Transferable Votes - and a country that ranks bottom in the top 20 nations for quality of life.
When it comes to the monarchy, we ain’t broke, they don’t bother us, so why fix it? Turning this country into a republic would make no good difference to anyone’s everyday existence.
We are at the very end of the earth, which makes retaining links with what represents much of our history, heritage and culture rather important – even if it’s only symbolic as far as Her Majesty is concerned.
We also need links with the Old Country’s talent – which was why creating a Supreme Court with access to a limited pool of wisdom in New Zealand was a monumental error. We threw away our closest connection with the greatest body of expertise in English law, which is what we operate on. Tragic mistakes may lie ahead.
Anyone who believes that Britain is now part of Europe had better consult the English. Most of them dislike and distrust Johnny Foreigner, wistfully preferring their old Commonwealth partners any day, if another World War came down to the wire. The Brits like their Royal heritage. It earns far more from tourists than the extended Royal Family costs UK taxpayers.
The DominionPost reckons that when the Queen departs and Charles takes over would be a good time to sever the ties. That paper couldn’t be more wrong: tree-hugger and environmentalist Charles may appear slightly odd to some, but he’s the nearest thing to a common-or-garden human being that the Royal Family has spawned in a thousand years, and he’s on the Greens’ side!
The horrific republican alternatives include President Helen Clark, President Sam Hunt (has potential), President Jonathan Hunt (two presidents for the price of one) or (pass the party pills, please) President Winston Peters.
This country – or more precisely, its leadership – is not old enough for republicanism. When politicians stop behaving like small children, perhaps ordinary grown-up New Zealanders might want to revisit the subject, if they’re not too busy.
Tagged as helen_clark, monarchy, Politics, Queen, republic, republicanism, Sam_Hunt, Society, winston_peters
October 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Yes, we are doing fine at the moment, on balance. However, our economic and social performance is not due to our being a monarchy. And there would be no difference if we became a republic. The monarchy vs republic debate is outside the realm of our everyday lives. It’s about whether we feel confident enough to choose our own head of state, not about getting Helen Clark elected president. Fair enough, I can understand the need among some inhabitants of a young, small and relatively undistinguished country pining for a connection to something bigger and more impressive than NZ’s essentially bucolic history, but not everyone feels that way.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Comment to comment: I think the point is more that our current status causes us no problems, so why go running the risk of creating them by messing about with something that needs no about-type messing?
Comment to article: I understand Prince Charles has made it clear he intends to be George VII when the time comes, not the third bearer of his first given name.
If we sever even our symbolic ties with the UK, I’ll be giving some serious thought about other places to move to, rather than risk being dragged into the beckoning gurgler that most of the fully independent former colonies have fallen into (”fully independent” being a relative term, of course, given that many swap dependence on one country for dependence on dozens of others via the World Bank or aid agencies).
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
One of the most powerful arguments against republican status for NZ is the dearth of examples, among those colonies and protectorates that achieved independence from Britain in the past century, of nations that have actually made a success of things.
What should we take as our role model - Ghana, perhaps? Or Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Egypt, or Iraq, Pakistan or Burma? Virtually the only stable democracy on the territory of a former British protectorate is Israel, which has its own problems.
Nearer to home, we could look to the autocratic states of Malaysia or Singapore, or how about Kiribati, where the library in Tarawa stopped acquiring new books after independence in 1979? Or perhaps Fiji, which can’t quite work out what its status is, claiming to be a republic yet not bothering to remove the Queen from its coins and banknotes.
Botswana is doing quite well for itself, but is blessed with natural resources in the form of diamonds, which might be helping a bit.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
There isn’t a dearth of examples. For starters, the comparisons made are to states that had little or no history of democratic government. New Zealand has been a democracy for more than 150 years. This matters more than whether a country is a republic or monarchy. Moreover, there are plenty of examples during the Queen’s reign where the monarchy has failed to protect democracy - e.g. Sierre Leone, Pakistan, Grenada, Fiji, etc etc (there’s more, but I can’t remember them right now). The comparison is fallacious.
It is better to compare New Zealand to other western liberal democracies that have a long history of democracy like us. There are plenty of examples of successful parliamentary republics - the Republic of Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Germany, Malta, Italy, etc. The comparison to republics that follow the Presidential system (e.g. the United States) or semi-presidential system (e.g. France or Russia) is a nonsense.
Finally, on the issue of whether our status quo is broken: it is a question of what we consider the roles of the Governor-General and Sovereign to be. At present, neither can hold the Prime Minister and their Cabinet to account - the Sovereign never gets involved in Commonwealth constitutional issues, as shown above, and the Governor-General is hamstrung by not being the actual head of state and being appointed and dismissed at the whim of the Prime Minister.
A republic with an elected head of state - directly or indirectly - would mean a proper check on the Prime Minister and Cabinet, where currently there is none. Far from creating problems, it would pro-actively prevent them from arising. If we’re worried about a politician getting the job (which I would argue is a fairly baseless reason - Holyoake was hardly a bad Governor-General, so there’s no reason to suggest a President would act differently) then we can indirectly elect the head of state via a three-quarters majority of parliament, to ensure neither major party can elect a crony.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
The current German republic has been stable for more than 50 years, but the two that preceded it were distinctly dodgy. I’d be rather hesitant about extolling the democratic virtues of Portugal; it had 48 years of fascist dictatorship that ended only with a revolution in 1974. The Italian republican state has been decidedly flaky throughout its existence, with around 400 changes since WW2.
I’m not sure how one distinguishes between these countries and those that “follow the Presidential system”, either, since all of these nations have presidents. Unless it’s their figurehead status - and if a figurehead president is OK (as in Germany and doubtless most of the others whose presidents we never hear of), then what’s the problem with maintaining our existing figurehead and not rocking the boat?
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Prior to being a republic, Germany was federated as a constitutional monarchy - which worked OK (although not exactly democratically) until the end of World War I, when the Kaiser abdicated. What replaced it, the Weimar republic, was a weak semi-presidential system… and the rest is history.
The Italian presidency has been much more stable than the rest of Italy’s post-war politics; I doubt the monarchy would have ensured Italy’s parliament would’ve been any more stable. Unless, of course, the monarch did what Emmanuel III did in 1922 and side with the fascists.
The distinguishing feature between Parliamentary republics and republics based on Presidential systems is that a President of the latter kind of republic has wide executive powers - hence the “Presidential” system.
The problem with our system, as I’ve already noted, is that we have a constitutionally useless figurehead - when push comes to shove, they are unable to act. There is plenty of Commonwealth precedent to support this. Certainly from a strictly legal perspective, the Governor-General could act, but this is so rare that it almost never happens - save the Whitlam debacle in Australia in 1975. In that instance, the Governor-General acted before the Prime Minister could dismiss them, so that they wouldn’t have to implement the Prime Ministers’ advice to call a half-senate election.
By contrast, Presidents in parliamentary republics are often reposed with certain powers to act as circuit breakers - the President of Ireland, for example, can refer Bills to their Supreme Court or referendums, the President of Iceland recently sent a bill on the regulation of the media to a referendum, the President of Germany recently referred a bill back to the Bundestag because the Supreme Court argued it breached the constitution (of course, Parliament could amend the constitution by holding a referendum). Such Presidents are far superior to our Governor-General, in that they can actually act as the check the Viceroy is meant to be - because they are the head of state (and have what we would call the “mana” of the office) and can actually act when they need to without worrying about the Prime Minister’s Sword of Damocles.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Please tell us precisely how your proposed President will improve the lives, earnings and career prospects of New Zealanders. Gog’s a fast-moving community, and does not like to get bogged down with too much dead and buried history.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
That’s hardly a good yardstick for constitutional reform, things like checks and balances are, as Bearhunter notes, esoteric concepts that won’t affect your pay packet directly. But in answer to your question; most importantly it means we would have a proper check on the Prime Minister and Cabinet; as for incomes and career prospects - since the job will go to a New Zealander then at least one of us would be better off!
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Under MMP, we have an unelected Foreign Minister who is clearly not up to it and a truckload of other List MPs who are, beyond any doubt, holding this country back. Will these semi-elected List MPs be allowed to vote in favour of your President? Or will your plan allow all the people vote for their replacement Queen?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Ah, well that depends on what NZers themselves want. Keith Locke’s Head of state (Referenda) Bill puts two options to a referendum (along with the status quo): either election by a three-quarters majority of parliament, or direct election using STV (Preferential voting). If no one option gains a majority, then a second referendum will be held between the two most popular options. That way we avoid the dual issues of whether we want a republic, and if so what sort of electoral method is used.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
MMP currently allows for rule by the absolute minority - if the President were to be elected by our current parliamentary set-up, he or she could effectively turn out to be an appointee of the Greens, or Winston Peters. That is undesirable.
The notion that a president could provide an additional control on elected government runs contrary to accepted democracy, where the people choose the leadership and get rid of it when it fails.
Any idea of MPs electing a president is simply ludicrous. It would support cronyism and increase the risk of corruption. It’s all very well to quote examples of enlightened presidents opposing what they see as unfair legislation. However, such positions of absolute power also offer the opportunity for abuse. Making presidents, kings and queens politically impotent is one reason why enlightened democracies work.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
No they wouldn’t - unless NZ First and or the Greens could convince a three-quarters vote for their candidate, which is highly unlikely. Either National or Labour would oppose, and (given the way the Bill is written) the Greens’ nomination would fall off the list. More than likely, we would see the sort of appointments we have with the Gov-Gen at the moment. Satch’s appointment as GG was supported by every parliamentary leader.
I’m not suggesting that a president would intervene any more than the Governor-General does - certainly not in a democratically elected government, unless said government was clearly at odds with the majority of the population, in which case they would have certain powers to intervene - that’s where most of my examples come from.
What I am saying is that presidents in parliamentary republics are better able to resolve constitutional crisis, and actually prevent them from arising as they actually do have some teeth. I’m not suggesting having a president with absolute power; that would be absurd. Finally, as I suggest above, if we don’t want MPs electing the president (which was the case in Australia) then the New Zealand public could directly elect the President. We would then have an office much like the Irish Presidency.