* In Australia Liberal equates to U.S. Republicans or the U.K. Conservatives, while Labor equates to U.S. Democrats and U.K. Labor.
It is now a matter of history this referendum was defeated. It required a majority vote in a majority of states to succeed. It failed dismally.
As a consequence, today I honestly feel as if I have suffered a death in the family. I am not alone with this feeling of betrayal by my fellow Australian brothers and sisters.
Never in 50 years of electoral wins and defeats have I been so profoundly affected by an election result.
Again I am not alone in these feelings and I expect the long term consequence will be felt for years to come. People in other lands, notably the U.K as well as the U.S.A., must be truly perplexed by the result of this referendum.
republic
/ruh'publik/ noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in
the
body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives
chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons, etc.,
viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state, especially a democratic
state, in which the head of the government is an elected or nominated
president, not a hereditary monarch. [L r[emacr ]spublica (abl.
r[emacr ]public[amacr ]) state, lit., public matter]
Many were however, indoctrinated into a culture of respecting "their betters".
Little would have changed in the first half of this century because, excepting the many people from Irish, Scottish or Welsh backgrounds (they were the majority), everyone else was "British to the bootstrap", unfortunately they were also the ones firmly in control.
Subsequently this culminated with an electoral promise by Paul Keating at the 1996 election to hold a constitutional convention if he were successful at that election. This promise was "sort of" matched by the then Opposition Leader John Howard.
History again records that Keating was soundly beaten by Howard at that election. Howard, an avowed monarchist, found himself obliged to honour an election pledge to form a constitutional convention.
John Howard did indeed "sort of" honour that "sort of" pledge. The convention which ensued was structured in such a fashion as, in my opinion, it would be most difficult to gain a consensus of opinion from a wide cross section of the community who should have participated in an "informed" debate on "what kind of republic".
Dedicated monarchists were invited to discuss proposed republican models. My own opinion is, notwithstanding the constraints imposed upon them, the final outcome by the participants was the absolute best one could expect.
With one or two rat bag exceptions, all participants made magnificent contributions and indeed many rose above themselves to reveal true statesmanlike characteristics. The youngsters in particular, made stunning contributions.
On this historic and solemn occasion, ABC-TV honoured it's charter by punctually discontinuing the historic convention and commencing children's programs (Sesame Street) at that time.
Complaints to ABC-TV only elicited the response - "the average Australian mother must NOT, under our charter, be deprived of her electronic baby sitter".
So much for our sense of history. Then again, this series of debates over the future of a nation was probably soundly beaten in the T.V. ratings by the 2.30 a.m. "Home Shopping" program on commercial T.V. Such is the deep involvement of the average Australian in current affairs.
This distinct lack of interest, coupled with the inevitable ignorance, would prove to be quite profound come referendum day.
At the time of the convention quite extensive coverage was given by the media as a whole. For the population at large this served only to unduly interfere with their sports results in the print media, whilst in the electronic media, the commercials would prove infinitely much more interesting. So much for your sense of destiny.
Essentially this was to sever ties with the anachronistic British crown, delete word "governor - general" and insert word "president".
A number of direct election delegates were so totally unimpressed and alienated that they selfishly (my opinion) vowed to destroy any success at a future referendum. True blue republicans.
This is a promise they have certainly since made good, to act as "spoilers". May future generations forgive them, I certainly will not.
This committee would then make a final single recommendation to the Prime Minister, to be agreed upon by the Leader of the Opposition AND then be confirmed by a two-third majority of parliament. Essentially a minimalist system of republic.
The reason for the evolution of the minimalist proposal was, in my view, a perfectly valid compromise or acceptable balance between those who did not want to disturb the existing proven system of governance against those who passionately wanted an Australian head of state. That is; not a radical departure from the existing system.
Interestingly, I am convinced that had a radical change been recommended, then it also would have failed at the referendum for fears of leaping into the unknown and untried. Don't believe the polls. Come to the crunch on voting day, a radical proposal such as a direct election model would have fared much worse than the minimalist model did. Think long and carefully about that.
I am utterly convinced the Australian people would never have accepted a radical overhaul of their constitution. The direct election slogans were simply uninformed knee jerk reaction to jingoist slogans.
Direct election never was and never will be a real possibility, the obstacles are too insurmountable.
If you personally advocate direct election, yet voted NO to torpedo YOUR REPUBLIC OF AUSTRALIA, then why couldn't you have voted YES and; continue your campaign from within for direct election?
Why did you pick up your bat and ball and go home? Why did you rat on Australia?
If you are a monarchist then I respect your views. I agree to disagree with you.
Significantly, the direct election advocates could not produce any satisfactory model which would unconditionally guarantee the position of president would not be politicized. They failed, they failed quite miserably. They still fail to acknowledge, that none of our esteemed past governors-general would have allowed his name to be put forward if it was to be for a politicized position.
To effect such a massive change in government as a directly elected president, would require the comprehensive re-writing of the Australian constitution, clear delineation of powers of the president, the prime minister and the parliament. Such a task, in my view, is nigh an impossibility.
A thought provoking "Geoffrey Robertson Hypothetical" on the Australian constitution several years ago elegantly highlighted the near impossibility of merely updating or modernizing our constitution. That was without even considering such a massive rewrite as would obviously become necessary to accommodate a directly elected president, with all the required divisions of power.
The failure of the direct election advocates at the constitutional convention to convince their co-delegates, merely underscores what is clearly the tip of the iceberg in gaining consensus of opinion. That is even before we involve whole herds of constitutional lawyers. Put two of them together and you get four opinions.
Irrespective of those insurmountable problems there are many people, myself included, who simply don't want a politicized position of president. It must not only be above politics but "seen" to be above politics.
Direct election must by definition encompass a politician as a candidate. The U.S. experience is such that only those financially well off in a big way or, those with substantial financial backing can hope to reach the top of the list of candidacy.
The selling point that "a little Aussie battler" could aspire to such a direct election position, while undoubtedly a very romantic notion, is patently ridiculous. It is absurd. It is fanciful. It is unbelievably naive.
Direct election is a fine slogan to seduce those who neither understand or are unwilling to seek the most basic education in governance at all its levels, the potential difficulties and pitfalls involved and the massive changes to that governance. For Australians this would entail, on the day, an unacceptable quantum leap into the wide unknown. If a minimalist proposal proved so devastatingly unacceptable to the Australian people what chance a radical change getting up?
Having said that, I expect I am to be labelled another one of those so called "elitist republicans", about whom so much has been written in recent weeks and months.
The truth is: I am just another knock about lad who originated from
Sydney's western suburbs and apart from an assortment of formal technical
qualifications, I was educated in the "hard school of life". So much for
the "chardonnay set" theory. V.B. - Yes
(see postscript)
AS:
"the politicians' republic"
Significantly, the monarchists alone, also with calculated deceit, NEVER once to my knowledge, publicly defended the monarchy or its role in a modern Australia. Obviously that would have been fatal to a united cause of "down with the republic".
The unholy alliance simply maintained an ongoing scare campaign of short, yet repetitive slogans to reinforce fear, doubt and scepticism. Rarely was there any rational debate. Total reliance was placed on the 15 - 30 second repetitive TV commercials. For once the media attempted to be informative, even educational in a few instances.
Interestingly, the NO campaign appeared to be financially able to run three times as many T.V. commercials and newspaper advertisements as compared to the republican movement. My comments above about financial backing and a directly elected president rings bells in my mind.
To date, I have met NO ONE apart from myself, who bothered to read this booklet. The confessed NO voters I have encountered so far (seems to be everybody but me) have all quite frankly told me the booklet was too boring and was immediately consigned to the rubbish bin.
This is called obtaining an informed opinion. Throw out the facts (both sides) and simply place total reliance upon T.V. commercials and talk back radio. This is how you decide the destiny of your nation for generations to come, a bit like considering the purchase of your lunch today.
A further burden to the republican cause was the stance taken by the Prime Minister, a self admitted monarchist and a man whose position guarantees significant influence. Instead of standing back in a statesmanlike manner and being even handed, he used every opportunity to "muddy" the waters. I believe, unfortunately for John Howard, his medium term prospects are quite bleak. Far too many of his party colleagues, whilst conservatives, are die hard republicans. Already I hear the political knives sharpening.
John Howard's assured place in history will unfortunately be inglorious. This is for a man who, although I disagreed with his political philosophy, I admired for his stance on guns and over Timor.
Unlike our traditional elections which decide the fate of governments, where all too frequently they are decided by the hip pocket nerve, this referendum and; here I'm basing my impressions purely upon the comments and questions I received on the day, revealed to me a deep level of ignorance by voters of even the most basic issues involved. Few had any real idea of our system of government.
That is not an elitist view, simply a most obvious statement of fact.
The vote for my total respect for the day must go to a wonderful, frail little old lady who articulated her monarchist views quite well. She was honest, informed and refreshingly, politely forthright.
I suspect the final outcome may well be sometime in the future, when Prince Charles succeeds to the throne. Then republican pressure throughout the United Kingdom will force King Charles III to abdicate.
In this circumstance, Australia would have to hurriedly cobble together a republic in an atmosphere of crisis.
Alternatively, King Charles III could of course be offered sanctuary
as well as Australian citizenship. Monarchists would be over the moon and
"Woman's Day" sales would go through the roof.
Ian C. Purdie
Budgewoi N.S.W.
Sunday - 7th November, 1999
Footnotes and follow-up:
noted Monday, 6th March, 2000
1. At the same time as I wrote the above page I also wrote a letter to the editor of the "Daily Telegraph" in Sydney. This letter was printed Monday 8th November and presumably on grounds of conserving space, was edited by removing about the middle 70%.
Unfortunately, as a consequence, my principal point i.e. an "ill informed" electorate was totally lost.
2. Quite a number of people
have taken the time to write to me by email and I thank them. One of the
most thought provoking email letters
came from Graham Paterson on 12th January, 2000
3. Postscript 9th March,
2000 - As I write this postscript it has been universally conceded
in recent days, that in the U.S. Primaries the principal candidates, both
Democrat and Republican, have each already spent $US 100 million on their
respective campaigns. Is this what the avid "direct electionists" (DE)
want for our country?
There is absolutely NO way the DE's can avoid these fundamental issues:
Subsidiary roles are purely ceremonial. Assuming we are not looking for an expanded role for the President beyond that expressed, what person of sufficient high esteem would allow themselves to be put forward as candidate for election apart from a politician with the usual obligations that it entails toward others?
Political campaigns COST money and, obligations invariably ensue.
This is certainly not the case. My mother migrated from England on a troopship with her brother in 1919. My father's parents were Scot and Welsh respectively. I have cousins residing in the UK. My wife's antecedents were Irish and English.
My view is, "I am an Australian", I am proud of that. The majority of Australians were either born overseas or had either one or both parents born overseas, that does nothing to lessen our desire to be "independently Australian", nor is it a reflection upon our antecedents. -
Sunday, 16th February, 2003
I attended a war protest rally in Sydney today and reported back to friends world wide through a newsgroup. Here's that report.
URL: visit my main page - http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/
4. Postscript 29th July,
2000 - From feedback I have received, both for and against my views - and thanks very much for that because it is certainly appeciated, some people seem to confuse my views as being "anti-British".
SYDNEY PROTESTS AGAINST WAR