Republican dream or political nightmare?

The PM says no effort will be made to become a republic in the immediate future, following his meeting with King Charles at Balmoral.

King Charles has said that whether or not Australia becomes a republic is entirely a matter for the Australian people.

Parliamentary sovereignty has long since overcome the sometimes-terrible consequences that followed the ascent of a tyrant to the English throne. But the rise of a Trump or a Putin to virtually absolute power in a modern republic seems to defy the lessons of history.

By resorting to populism, Australian republicans seem to have given up on trying to lead Australia into a future with imagination, energy and optimism. Former Labor leader, Mr Shorten, once loudly proclaimed: “We are Australian, not Elizabethan.”

That’s not a long way from Trump shouting about making America great again, and we are seeing where that leads. Mr. Albanese is a republican, but the failure of his “Voice” referendum has dampened his enthusiasm for meddling with the constitution.

The monarchy is an institution that transcends both the state and the individual who happens to be monarch for the time being. But, at the same time, the monarch is meant to personify our values and aspirations as a people. The Monarch is a notional superior entity, above politics.

By acknowledging our imperfection and corruptibility we place ultimate power, at least in theory, beyond the grasp of would-be autocrats and tyrants.

Trump’s authoritarian rule is the result of the founders not clearly defining and limiting the powers of the president in the constitution of the USA. But to be fair, they could not have expected a malicious narcissistic fool would ever be raised to the highest office.

If Australia is to become a republic and dispose of the Monarchy, we have to first address the crucial question of what form the Republic of Australia should take.

Australian Republicans are apparently not keen to discuss this issue but it’s a fairly safe bet that most voters would favour direct election of the head of state and not appointment by the Parliament.

Many Australians know little about our constitution, much less how to go about amending it. However, for good reasons, Australians are distrustful of politicians and history suggests that the constitutional reforms needed to create a workable republican system would probably be rejected at a referendum.

The major political parties know that considerable reform could be achieved by legislation, but they prefer the status-quo which tends to limit representation of minorities. This diverts the Senate from its intended functions and frustrates implementation of mandated government policies.

The Governor General represents the Monarch but, in practice, the elected government, through the Prime Minister, appoints the Governor General. The Whitlam government created the “Queen of Australia” in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973, without a referendum.

Similar legislation could be passed to change the Governor General’s title to “President”. In this scenario, the elected parliament could appoint the President at a joint sitting every 6 six years in line with Senate elections.

Alternatively, the President of an Australian Republic directly elected by the people would be supported by powerful media or multi-national corporate entities who may be inclined to place their commercial interests above those of the nation. Candidates able to attract the most money for advertising and pork-barreling would be likely to gain decisive political advantage.

The House of Representatives in a quasi-republican system with a directly elected President might find itself confronted not only by a hostile Senate, but also by a President claiming a separate mandate. This form of Australian Republic could turn out to be even less functional than the present constitutional monarchy and democratic change would be all the more difficult to achieve.