The sad demise of Our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth after Her glorious seventy-year reign opened up a metaphysical real estate opportunity for the plutocracy. They’d all been waiting for this with their fake smiles and their shark’s teeth and their odious self-worship. The plutocracy feels that they are the true princes of the earth and nothing must be denied them. They loathe the monarchy because the merest idea that with inherited wealth should come a lifetime of service is anathema to them. They believe they are in truth Supermen. The constitutional monarchy, for them, comes in robes of kryptonite.
You’d like to hear the Elevator Pitch? Here it is in one picture:
You would have thought that Donald had killed off any chance of an Australian republic. But apparently not. That is what you will eventually get if you have a popularly elected president. Now if you have the Politicians’ President this is what they will look like:
The Republic is basically a Boomer project. For the young, the most likely response would be this:
People who think about things rather than dreaming about fantasy republics have seen the way the wind is blowing. In the modern age, every twenty years or so, another secular, more-or-less democratic republic succumbs to corrupt quasi-religious terrorists. 1979: Iran. 2000-odd: Turkey. Nowish: the USA. And Israel.
But it couldn’t happen here, though? You think? It really can. Once you get a popularly-elected president, the end-game is Trumpism. Republics don’t work. We have always known this. Why is that? That’s a far more interesting question. Not one, I may add, that republicans ever bother their heads with. The real question is what do you want this republic of yours to do? Make us all rich? Solve all your personal problems? Play bagpipe sonatas?
Back in the real world things are not so straightforward. So you want one, do you? What sort would you like? A Fifth Republic? An American republic? A religious republic? A military dictatorship? A corrupt oligarchy? A banana republic? Why not decide to have one first, and we’ll work out the details later? That’s a perennial favourite. It’s also utterly deranged. Show us a model which you think works. We’ll show you exactly why it doesn’t work; and then we can all have a beer afterwards.
There is a bigger issue here which self-sabotages all the best intentions of fashionable folks. Asked to nominate a single thing wrong with progressive thought, I would say this. Far too often, progressives define themselves primarily by what they are not. And while we all like to think we are rational beings, far too often it is emotion rather than reason which animates us. I have listened to many republican rants of late. Generally it’s about raw, unfiltered emotion. A particularly incandescent exemplar is Antifa. So, you’re anti-fascist, are you? Well, so are we. Who stood up to Nazi Germany? Napoleonic France? Louis XIV? Phillip II? And beat them all? Why, that would be Britain, wouldn’t it? But you don’t defeat fascism by violent demonstrations. That’s what fascists like best. Nothing makes a fascist thug happier than the chance to deck someone behind the pub. What are you in favour of? Tell us what you love and cherish. You don’t like Britain? What DO you like? And please: what sort of republic would you like to have? Do you really want a homegrown Trump? Would you like a Parthenopean republic? That’s what you’re only too likely to get. (A quisling kleptocracy who briefly seized power in Naples under Napoleon. They came, they looted, and they ran away.) What would it look like, if you were to be granted your wish?
Back in the real world republics don’t work. Not in a country this size. Here’s a list of the world’s republics which do: Botswana, Iceland, Finland, Slovenia, Estonia, Costa Rica, Austria, Singapore, Uruguay, the Czech Republic and Ireland. (I would once have said Israel, but at the time of writing it is having an existential crisis. I wish them luck. They’ll need it.) There may be a few others. What do they have in common? Three things. They’re smallish, they’re largely monocultural, and most possess a unique (and demanding) language which migrants have to learn if they want to fit in. Republics can work if everyone wants the same things. Not otherwise.
Sound like Australia? Nope. Not even close. Now many folks like to romanticise the Eurozone. No, it doesn’t work. It is seriously dysfunctional. France? France and the French are very easy to like. They do a lot of things well. They are absolutely terrible at politics. Germany? Well, for the parts of Germany which do work, you’d really have to be German to copy them. They have some ugly secrets of their own, even now. Their economy could best be described as apartheid-lite. Much of the hard work is done by Gästarbeiter. But at least they aren’t confined to laagers. Germany also has the massive advantage of a fairly functional federation, which keeps their mutual loathing under control. In the North, they are all hung up on Die Kunst and being obsessively artsy and fashionably depressed. In the South, they’re daggy, happy and they don’t care. But Germany is the autocrat of the EU. They command, and their subject states must obey. Yes, thanks to monetary union, we’re doing well and our lazier counterparts are doing badly. Well, it’s their fault.
But the iron claw comes out of the velvet glove when things go wrong. If you want to see beneath the glitzy veneer of the German-dominated EU, have a read of Yanis Varoufakis’ terrifying Adults In The Room. Switzerland by the by is sui generis. It isn’t a republic in the conventional sense. It’s a loose confederation of cantons which are small enough, and successful enough, to manage their own affairs behind their mountain ranges. In the case of France, the president (under the Fifth Republic dispensation given to persuade de Gaulle out of self-imposed exile in Colombey-les-deux-Églises) has theoretically one-third of the power. Just enough to fancy themselves lords of the earth; but not enough to achieve anything useful. The Prime Minister is usually a cipher. As they are in most republics. Because the President gets most of the power. The problem, as ever, is the problem of power. Who gets to share it? On what terms?
Were we to become a republic, the most likely model is the American one. Their Founding Fathers were probably the most intellectually brilliant nation-builders ever to walk the earth. They knew human nature too well to have any illusions about it. So their Republic was based on healthy distrust – of government, and of the people. Yet the seeds of doom were already sprouting. The first republic ended in 1861 amid a sanguinary civil war which smoulders to this very day. Their second republic almost died in 2020. Only the heroic endeavours of vote-counters in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin working through the night averted a second civil war. Which may still happen. The attempted coup of January 6th 2021 is currently regarded by millions of Americans as a righteous rebellion, or at worst an amusing peccadillo. If they get through the next two decades without Secession and civil war, they will be very fortunate. And that, let us repeat, with the benefit of a bunch of level-headed genius founders. We have nobody here with a quarter of their intellectual prowess. Let’s not go there.
Republicans on these fatal shores seem to talk largely in empty slogans. We want an Australian as Head of State! That’s a common trope. Last time I looked, Her Excellency looked pretty Australian to me. In Canada, the G-G is de jure Head of State except when the Sovereign is actually present. In Australia and New Zealand this is also the case de facto. We want to be fully independent! Again, that happened in 1931, with the Statute of Westminster. Get with the script, people. 1931 is almost a century ago. We know republicans are terribly slow on the uptake, but this is getting ridiculous.
There is also this business of bowing and kneeling. Some find it demeaning. I don’t. But here’s the thing. Everyone bows to somebody. Monarchists only bow to the Crown and Its Representatives. Anyone else? Go stick it in your ear. The plutocracy would have us remove our hats and incline our heads in awe as they pass us by. They would have us believe that they are godlike beings, and we are not worthy even to touch their celestial garments. We should be grateful for the shadow of their passing upon our miserable hovels as they process in state in their limousines. We should be awestruck in the presence of money and power. We must grovel and abase ourselves because they are the Oligarchs ordained by Mammon to rule over us. That is what they want, and expect. And to them all we say this. We are Aussies. Anyone coming the raw prawn on us may expect to be told to go stick their head up a dead bear’s bottom. Just the Crown, and representatives thereof. Anyone else? Bugger off. We do not kneel to you.
Constitutional monarchy works. Republics – by and large – don’t. We have just come out of a turbulent decade in our politics. And yet… we are still on our feet. There was no coup d’etat. The last PM may well have emulated the example of Pooh-Bah and sworn himself into every job save rat-catcher to the county. But at least he accepted the election result without a whimper. Dodgy presidents in his shoes would have found means to hold onto the reins. It’s what they do. They make an appalling mess of things; they take fright at what might happen if they ever lose power; they subvert the Constitution; and before you even know it you have yet another tinpot dictator swearing himself in as President-For-Life. He was a bad Prime Minister. But at least he didn’t go Full Trump on us.
Il Dismissale
You want to talk about 1975, do you? By all means let’s go there. I’m game if you are. The facts are these. Edward Gough Whitlam was a gifted polymath forced to wait far too long for his moment in the sun. By the time it arrived his hopes for a golden age of freedom had already soured. Thanks to deranged advice from Henry Kissinger, OPEC quadrupled oil prices and plunged the world into a grim regimen of stagflation. Anyone in office anywhere was already behind the eight-ball. (Memo: Henry was a very useful person on this planet. Listen to what he says; do the opposite; and you won’t go far wrong.)
In a shameless display of opportunism the then Opposition decided to throw caution to the winds and deny him supply in the Senate. Yes, this was in 1974. Nobody seems even to remember this now. Seeing that he could not govern without supply, Whitlam called for a double dissolution, which was granted. An increasingly suspicious electorate told the Opposition look: you aren’t playing fair. It’s looking like Whitlam is going off the planet, but he deserves to serve out his term at the very least. So no: we’re voting them back in. For now.
Anybody with a sense of history would have said no: you just don’t DO this! In our parent country, the House of Lords was stripped of its power to amend or refuse money bills in 1910. PM Herbert Asquith told the King that if supply was not passed in the Lords he would petition the Throne to create enough Liberal peers to force passage of Asquith’s budget. And the King made it known, through intermediaries, that in this case He was prepared to do just that. Mr Asquith and his friends are the government. Do by all means let them get on with it. Complain all you like, but don’t come to Us with it.
In this big brown land we were not so fortunate. The Senate can still refuse supply. It’s just that nobody is game to do it any more. And quite right too. All because of 1975, when an opposition led this time by Malcolm Fraser refused to learn from the calamities of the previous year and refused supply again. Far too many rivers of ink have been expended on The Dismissal. I will be brief: relying mostly on the testimony of Senator John Wheeldon; who was after all there on the government benches. And what he said was this.
He meant Kerr, Fraser and Whitlam, naturally. In his sober, Westralian view, all of them had gone troppo.
And the constitutional coup destroyed all three of them. Whitlam was the first to recover his sang-froid. He was too large and expansive a character to take permanent harm from his ordeal. Fraser did not recover until after his inept administration was booted from office, after seven unpleasant years of small-minded inertia. Kerr? He had sinned greatly and he knew it. He never did recover. In his self-serving memoir he explained his actions. It didn’t help much. The good news from the Dismissal is that nobody has ever been foolish enough to try this on again.
As Wheeldon put it, Kerr’s clear constitutional duty was to front the PM and tell him this. ‘Look, Gough, if you keep on with this crazy scheme I might have to sack you.’ Instead, Kerr went behind his back and conspired with the Opposition, egged on by a rogue Chief Justice. Whitlam’s attempt to govern without supply was deranged. In time, he probably accepted the truth of this. Kerr’s rationale was that if he told the PM what he was intending, then he would himself be sacked. But that is neither here nor there. The Sovereign and Their representatives have three, and only three, proper rights in a constitutional monarchy. The right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn. Would Whitlam have sacked Kerr, in that event? We know that he rang the Palace. What HM said to him must remain confidential, but Her views on the central issue are manifest.
This is a problem for Australians alone. Australia is a sovereign nation. The Court of St James cannot interfere. We are sorry, Prime Minister, but the ball is in your court.
So what would Whitlam have done then, had he been warned in advance? Would he have asked the Crown to remove Kerr’s commission? Maybe. And maybe not. Whitlam was at bottom a constitutionalist. Lawyers generally are. He would have consulted the Sovereign, who would have told him yes, Prime Minister, if that is truly your wish, then you may have it. She would also have outlined for him the likely consequences of his actions. And here we come to the crucial reason why republics don’t work, and constitutional monarchies do. Having to consult somebody else before taking a plunge into the icy waters of incalculable consequences is a marvellous weapon not to be discarded lightly.
Let us now imagine what would have happened had Kerr been a President, invested with all the bogus trappings of brief authority. He would have looked at his options and realized that yes, I can sack the government. As things now stand, he can also sack me. We will have two rival administrations, each claiming to be the rightful government. I can call out the armed forces to enforce my will. He can issue countermanding instructions. The military high command will probably be divided, and we can all settle down to a prolonged and sanguinary civil war.
Kerr’s position, had he been a mere Parliamentary sock puppet, would have been untenable. This is why politicians yearn for a catspaw Head of State they can manipulate and dismiss at a moment’s notice. Left to themselves, politicians cannot be trusted when the better angels of their nature are stressed or in detriment. Which is why some outside politics yearn for a popularly elected president. Had Kerr the armoury of popular franchise behind him he would in all probability have won the ensuing conflict. Elected Presidents can generally outrank and outface Prime Ministers. This would have taken us into realms of dark fancy undreamt-of. But civil war, of one sort or another, would have certainly erupted. As it was, all the contending parties felt at once that they were in the grip of a metaphysical Other: the Crown. One who reigns rather than rules. One who will give you what you ask for, while outlining the probable consequences of your leap into the great Unknown. And above all someone with no axe to grind, and no partisanship.
Knowing full well that he was not a mighty overlord, but rather a man stuck in an untenable position, Kerr did the only thing he possibly could do and called for new elections. That part of his actions is indisputable. The role of Bob Hawke, then head of the ACTU, is now forgotten. But he may have done his best service to his people even before his ascension to the Lodge. He put his own reputation on the line by imploring the Comrades to cool it. It would have been fatally easy for him to throw fuel on the flames. But he was an intelligent and courageous man, despite his many public flaws, and he realized what was needed at the time. Speaking of Hawke, another public utterance of his has also been overlooked:
Well said, Prime Minister. But the problem goes far beyond the potential conflicts outlined above. Australia is not one monarchy but seven. For a referendum to succeed – and most don’t – it needs a majority of votes in a majority of states. However, let us imagine such a referendum. What if – say, Queensland and Western Australia – vote No to the republic and the other four states vote Yes? Is there anything stopping them seceding from the union forthwith and remaining constitutional monarchies? We almost lost WA in the Thirties. It came down to the votes of Kalgoorlie. Now we know that the Australian Constitution states that the Commonwealth is an indissoluble union. (It also states that New Zealand is part of it, by the by.) Just words on a page. Start ripping up bits of the Constitution and the whole thing flies out the window.
The truth of the matter is that once upon a time we might have got away with becoming a republic when we were largely Anglo-Celtic. Now there’s a weasel word, isn’t it? It worked because unlike in the Old Country, Australians made friends with the Irish and gave them a serious stake in the new land. Not now. Society is fragmenting as never before. And this has nothing to do with migrants. We will have no dalliance with the thought balloon that Things Aint What They Used To Be And It’s All The Fault Of Foreigners. (Matthew Parris, a long-serving Tory MP writing about UKIP.) Many migrants are only here because they fled dysfunctional republics. They mostly like what we do here, and would like us to keep on doing it. Our social dispersion has far more to do with the terminally grumpy: our own version of UKIP, who have expressed a readiness to vote for and hearken to the lunatic pronouncements of every village yahoo with a real or imaginary grievance. What we need more than anything else is a stable fabric wherein to begin the immense task of solving the terrifying crises and needs of our time.
You want another referendum? The last version calling itself a plebiscite wasted the best part of a billion dollars asking a ridiculous question about gay marriage. Blind Frederick could have told that administration yes yes YES! Of course gays should have the same rights as everyone else! And trans folk and anyone else who wants to get married. Will you please stop wasting our money and just get ON with it?
Ireland? Ireland has its own chapter elsewhere in this website. It is a complex matter with many ramifications. Many Irish-identifying folks are allergic to the bit of Union Jack in the corner of our flag. The question of our British heritage has its own chapters. Of course it does. It’s a long tale, but well worth the telling. And there will be cartoons and general light relief. Because. For the Irish among us, I offer this:
So who actually does want a republic? Socialists, communists, fashionable thinkers and those who don’t generally think things through. Most of them are decent enough human beings; but none of them has come up with any good reasons for having one. And of course there are the New Puritans. I have written elsewhere that we seem to be re-living the 17th century at present. In an age of iconoclasm there’s always somebody who wants to smash statues, destroy images, and deface ancient monuments. If you’re that sort of person, please read up on that dreadful time:
Who REALLY wants a republic, though? Unquestionably the plutocracy. Especially media magnates who feel that the people are only there to consume their products and do what they are told. It is rumoured that one notorious plutocrat has had it in for the British ruling class ever since he was patronized by some chinless wonder in the Home Counties. Instead of laughing it off (which is what a sane human would do) he apparently has devoted his life to destroying our monarchy. Nothing must stand between him and universal domination, apparently. It is his first thought on rising from his unpleasant bed in the morning, and it is his last thought on retiring to his miserable cot at night. I have been informed that his experience has been shared by many. This is because many tourists to the Old Dart don’t understand the cultural sensitivities of the place. You wouldn’t walk into a French shop without saying Bonjour ‘sieurs et dames! to all and sundry. (If you do, you will then experience the legendary French rudeness. It will be entirely your own fault. Learn the rules before you travel!) The English (Scots and Welsh don’t do this) have come to expect formation rudeness from Australians. Many now feel they may as well get in first with a pre-emptive strike. Just smile, let them know in the course of your conversation that you are here because you genuinely love the place, and most will drop the attitude.
Many of the English don’t understand why we still share their monarch. It’s their problem, not ours. If they give you a hard time, try this out:
A little finesse in polite conversation goes a long way.
Does Hollywood want us to be a republic? Their attitude could best be described as schizophrenic. On the one hand they make godawful movies like Braveheart, which told outrageous lies about Edward I and put that stalwart Norman knight Sir William de Walys in a preposterous kilt and war-paint, for reasons best known to themselves. They made Gladiator, which at least bore some nodding resemblance to the Rome of Marcus Aurelius; but spoiled an otherwise rousing movie by ending with Russell Crowe telling the Emperor to restore the Republic. For the record, the Roman republic died an ignoble and little-mourned death nearly two centuries previously. Because macro-republics don’t work. The Romans knew this. Apparently Hollywood doesn’t. On the other hand, they fell over themselves about Princess Diana. When their earlier darling Grace Kelly married into the House of Grimaldi they could scarcely contain their excitement. Everyone loves royalty. As long as it’s somebody else’s, apparently. Even if it is just Monaco.
Many have wondered why so many monarchists seem to be gay men. This is no accident. Rainbow folk of all persuasions feel exceptionally vulnerable. Why would you not, when every village oik’s hand is against you? We have the world’s most gay-friendly monarchy. The reasons for this are a tale so extraordinary it deserves a story all of its own:
You fear persecution? Know that the Sovereign has your back, so far as this was ever possible. Queen Elizabeth knighted the openly gay, many times over. And if it’s good enough for Her, then it’s good enough for everyone else. And here again is where your constitutional monarch has an important role to play. We already know that forcing people to undergo sensitivity training is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive. Having your monarch express Their view, quietly and without coercion, is a potent force for tolerance, reason, and kindness. Queen-watchers delighted in deciphering the subliminal messages our Sovereign subtly conveyed by Her choice of jewellery. This at once expressed, from the very pinnacle of our metaphysical infrastructure, a view that chills the hot-tempered enthusiasm of bullies everywhere.
So … by an accident of history we have inherited a Constitutional Monarch who lives a long way away. She represented a tradition of tolerance, gentle humour, inexhaustible patience and a resolute refusal to interfere with her far-flung subjects in any way, save through showing them what a life of unremitting service looks like. Her son will not be greatly different. And the young may warm to Him because he was an environmental agitator long before it was fashionable. Her grandson will be very much more of what She brought to our lives. By ridding ourselves of this allegedly outworn colonial relic, we gain nothing. But we lose a great deal. We leave the metaphysical landscape free to be colonized by rapacious tyrants. Their iron hand over us will not be so gentle.
Finally, do please consider this. In 1900, the three richest countries in the world per capita were Australia, New Zealand and Argentina. Two monarchies, one republic. Guess which one went bankrupt and succumbed to dictators? And why? Hearken, if you will, to the words of Scotland’s greatest hero James Graham, Marquis of Montrose:
Don’t do this. This is madness. What we have works, despite the poor quality of many of our representatives. Australia still functions despite them. Reform it by all means. Do not destroy it.