Republic Conundrum

THE day Australia won the Rugby Union World Cup was day of glory and ignominy. The glory is obvious. The ignominy is because it was that very same day that we voted 55 per cent to 45 per cent against replacing Queen Elizabeth II with our own Australian head of state.

Only one state, Victoria, voted in favour of becoming a Republic, and then by the barest of margins. In a system in which a referendum needs a majority, in a majority of states, to pass, the Republic referendum was a dismal failure.

How could a nation that has been talking of becoming a republic for more than 100 years, a nation which values its sense of egilitarianism and its rugged individualism and independence and in which polling shows the vast majority of people WANT a republic, vote so overwhelmingly a to remain as a constitutional monarchy and to keep, as its head of state, a queen who lives half way around the world?

In fact, the Queen never entered the debate. The monarchists realising success in the referendum depended on teaming up with republicans who favour a directly-elected President, rather than one appointed by a two-thirds majority of the parliament as was on offer, never mentioned the Queen. Instead, they opted for a negative campaign playing on people’s fears. Using the slogan ‘say NO to the politician’s republic’, they effectively tapped in to that same well-spring of mistrust that propelled Pauline Hanson into the Australian limelight.

In times when people are feeling neglected by their politicians, the idea of having a President who is elected directly by the people is very attractive. The irony is that the cost of running a campaign for President, as we see in the United States, would be so high that only the super-rich or those backed by a political party would have the wherewithal to run. Hence, the result would be, by definition, a politician.

It was avoid that very dominance of politicians and open the door to non-political candidates, such as the current highly respected Governor-General Sir William Deane, that the republican model on offer proposed a system which required both sides of politics to agree on a candidate.

The problem for the republican movement was that it didn’t get message across. It's campaign, which focussed on endorsements by celebrities and political leaders, including former Prime Minister’s such as Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam stressing the safety of the plan, only seemed to

confirm the notion that this was a republic for the elite. When one looks in detail at voting patterns it is clear that this issue divided the nation along income and educational lines rather than the usual labour/conservative split. Normally conservative areas, such as the electorate of Prime Minister John Howard - a monarchist, voted heavily in favour of the Republic, while traditional Labor strongholds backed the status quo.

Figures put together by republican pollster, Rod Cameron, before the referendum put the division even more clearly. They showed 60 per cent of those with a university degree intended to vote ‘yes’ while only 35 per cent of those who did not finish school would do so. Similarly, 62 per cent of those with an income over $BO,OOO a year planned to vote ‘yes’ while only 42 per cent of those in the lowest income bracket would do so.

As the astute political observer, Paul Kelly, pointed out: “The defeat of the republic exposes Australia as two different societies - a confident, educated city-based middle class and a pessimistic urban and rural battler constituency hostile to the 1990’s change agenda.” This divide as Kelly puts it “is not just an insuperable obstacle to the republic. It is far more serious - a threat to the cohesive and successful Australia as it tries to adapt to the globalised economy of the new millenium”. It also begs the question as to what can be done to heal this rift and give the battlers enough hope to enable them to rediscover a place for themselves and their country in today’s world.

As far as the Republic is concerned, the idea (pedaled by the ‘no’ campaign), that the groundswell for direct-election will make a ‘real’ republic inevitable in the relatively near future, is little more than a pious hope. John Howard has made it clear that as far as he is concerned the Republic is now off the agenda; “The Australian people have spoken, they have spoken very clearly and it’s now over - let’s get back to other things” he said immediately after the vote. Treasurer, Peter Costello, Mr Howard’s heir apparent and the leading Liberal republican, supports Howard’s decision, as does Liberal direct-electionist and Costello-rival, Peter Reith.

Labor Leader, Kim Beazley, has promised that should Labor win office it will begin a process to re-examine the issue beginning with a simple plebisite that does not endorse a particular kind of republic. Even if Labor is able to win the election and deal with its own internal divisions over the issue, this process could take a decade to come up with results.

Once it did so, the very difficult electoral requirements for constitutional change, would mean the new proposal for a Republic would need bi-partisan support to have any hope of succeeding. A Republic with a directly-elected President, would mean a great deal more constitutional change than that put to the people on November 6. Some interesting models, mainly based around the Irish system, have been put forward, notably by Labor leaders from Western Australia and South Australia.

Let’s hope that the next time the issue is put to a referendum, there is a more positive political environment. Don’t hold your wreath! m

Jemima Garrett

Sydney