!Viva la República!

Where has this been heard? Spain, Puerto Rico, Cuba and all the others. Revolution? Everywhere. Wars of Independence!!!!!!

Even here in Australia only two days since the news echoed around the world that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had died, the word “Republic” has been mentioned. From the Prime Minister we heard the phrase “Now is not a time to talk about our system of government, now is a time for us to pay tribute to the life of Queen Elizabeth.” This is true, but it comes from a person who has appointed Australia’s first-ever Assistant Minister for the Republic.

The republic movement is dusting off the cobwebs from their manifesto. So it is time for my colours to be hoisted to the top of the flagstaff.

Below I have a very simple picture of what Australia is except for the small triangle at the top. At the bottom are the disenfranchised. In practise this is a very small group – the size of the blocks aren’t indicative of the number of people. It’s just that I can’t write smaller.

Then there are the child who will all grow up and will join the group of electors. With them are migrants who will in time seek citizenship.

The citizens then elect the government.

What the Republican want to do is to remove the Monarchy (and the representatives of the Monarchy) from the triangle and replace it with a President.

That seems simple enough. But it isn’t.

The pyramid I have drawn is the same for all nations. In many nations the disenfranchised group may include the majority of the population. The electorate could well be only a small group and above them could probably be the Military and above them the Dictator.

The dictator occupies the triangle at the top. Now I don’t want you to think I have suddenly started using the word “Dictator” where I might have used the word “President”.

The problem is that that shift is too, too easy to make.

How do we get a President if there is no Monarch. Well we can vote for one. If we vote for one then we are assuming that a majority will choose Candidate A and a minority of 49% or perhaps 33% will be unhappy. Let’s imagine that we use the method that the United States – a constitutional federal republic – uses. Look what happened there last time.

Or the Government can appoint one. That wouldn’t make much difference because the Government is that group in the Parliament who can guarantee that they will get the most votes. This means that a minority of the parliamentarians – 49% or perhaps 33% – will be unhappy.

But what would be the motive of a person who sets out to become a candidate? Surely he/she would have a personal agenda of some kind. You can already see it in those people who are advocating for a Republic. They all have an agenda and any agenda will be divisive to some extent.

So you can see – those of you who want to – that while the top of the pyramid is occupied by the Monarch we are inoculated against the possibility of suddenly waking up one morning and learning that our President has started to morph into a Dictator. I’m not saying it is an inevitability. But it is a possibility.

There are too many examples around the world that support my argument and this discussion could well have been a book. But at least it is a talking point.

23 thoughts on “!Viva la República!

      1. Oh, gosh. I’m a few reds in.
        It went along the lines of what relevance does a British monarchy have in multicultural Australia?
        The biggest interest my Italian stepmother has is whether Meghan Markle is a horrible person.
        However, now the conversation must turn to what really replaces an absent monarch?
        So! A President replaces a Governor-General??? Not a bad thing if we cast our minds back to Sir John Kerr. Even poor old David Hurley has now blotted his copybook with questions around Scotty from Marketing.
        Must read: The Palace Letters by Dr Jenny Hocking. Sycophantic Kerr writing to the Queen via Sir Martin Charteris. Interference in our independent democracy on a huge scale – do we really wish to continue to allow that? What an outrage!!!
        But, who decides on the President???
        The populace? The presiding Government? The presiding Members of Parliament? Both House of Reps and Senators? Or only one or the other?
        As you say, any one of these choices has the potential to morph in to a dictator. But how many elected Presidents have achieved that in a sophisticated democracy?
        You may wish to cite Donald Trump, but you must take into account the USA is not a true democracy because so few of its citizens actually vote.
        And, thinking of Lee Quan Yew and all he achieved for Singapore – would being led by a benevolent dictator be the worst possible outcome?
        That’s all I can remember at this time of night.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. The UK and Australia are limited constitutional monarchies. Glenn Patmore, associate professor of law at Melbourne University, calls them crowned republics. The Prime Minister says it’s not the time to talk about our system of government but has appointed a minister for the republic. I imagine the sort of people who will have a say in the type of republic we can expect and I shudder. ⭐️

    Liked by 2 people

    1. We aren’t all pawns. We can have our say when he referendum arrives. As for Voltaire, he didn’t anticipate that while we are busy defending someone’s right to free speech, they have been working hard towards curtailing ours.


      1. A recent example is George Lazenby. He allegedly made misogynistic and homophobic remarks and was dumped from a Melbourne concert. He’s apologised since, but don’t expect him to be invited back.


      2. A referendum is not always a good measure of public thinking. In the UK we were cynically duped by massive lies into leaving Europe in the BREXIT referendum.

        When you have the vote on monarchy/republic I hope you get the right result.


  2. India has a President, a pretty powerless head of state. The power lies with the elected representatives who also have the power to elect the next President. They elect the Pres keeping the woke criteria in mind. This time it is from a non-majority religion, next will be a woman, and then a tribal, and so on. In my view a powerless Pres or monarch are a needless cost to the exchequer because they have a lavish lifestyle. The Indian President’s house might be one of the biggest in the world and they keep doing these tours of duty around the world as they have very little to do, except protect their old-age pension. Occasionally a President comes with a character and manages to create a connect with people, but that is rare. The PM makes sure that does not happen. My view – keep the monarch for what it is worth or get rid of the head position. The PM is the head.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s