Democracy's morality is the expectation that the public will be directly involved in the selection of public officials and all that entails. This morality is important as it is where public institutions get their legitimacy from. The morality of democratism is very strong in Australian culture.
Not only are Australians a republican people but they are a democratic people too. That graph is from a 1998 Newspoll which asked those polled if they had to choose from the three models which would be their choice; direct election, parliamentary appointment after election within parliament and a council composed of judges and former governor-generals appointing the head of state. I am not surprised that the natural Australian instincts for democratism won out.
Not only are Australians a republican people but they are a democratic people too. That graph is from a 1998 Newspoll which asked those polled if they had to choose from the three models which would be their choice; direct election, parliamentary appointment after election within parliament and a council composed of judges and former governor-generals appointing the head of state. I am not surprised that the natural Australian instincts for democratism won out. When democratism is chosen over appointment it is not only a desire to be involved in the process, it has ramifications on the legitimacy of the public office. Those that said they wanted to elect a President are also saying the legitimacy of the President's office is tied up in their approval. The civic component of this goes far beyond the dry choice of a constitutional model.
It is also a warning for future drafters of republican constitutions; ignore popular will and the public's desire for democratic morality then the cost will be the failure to establish republican government.
It is my firm opinion that any Australian republican model is going to have to incorporate a directly elected head of state. This raises separation of powers issues which it is up to republican constitutionalists to solve, and Australian republicans to communicate to the public, such that the public can satisfy their demand for a legitimate democratically moral system with the negative realities of executive and legislative power accounted for under limited government.
I only see two possible options.
One: If a parliamentary system is to be maintained with its inefficiencies in separation of powers, then a directly elected Governor-General has to represent the Bill of Rights directly and have as their popular mandate the requirement to protect those rights from executive and legislative intrusion. Veto would be the main technology to achieve this though some kind of formal mechanism to force legislation into judicial review would be beneficial as well.
Two: A presidential system where the executive becomes a separate office from parliament. In other words an executive in the style of the Washington system.
The second option is my preference.
