The responses here: raise the issue that Australian Republicans face. It is not negativity, so much, as genuine caution. Whatever the ills of the present system, it still provides decent and stable government, which is essential for people getting on with their lives without too much intrusion, chaos and volatility.
Minimal republican models are a response to that caution. But often they don\'t address the genuine problems of the Westminster system, that do exist in our system, and do interfere with Australia and the States having better government.
Republicans such as Deniehy and Lang thought Australia required an \"irritant cause\" for a Republican model of government to implemented. Britain\'s monarchy and titled classes survived, both in Britain, and Australia, largely by just giving in enough to the demands of the people.
So Australian Republicans never got their Boston Tea Party. It didn\'t help that drongos like William Wentworth tried to implement Kings, Lords, Commons patterns of government, which meant the skills of people such as Lang, Deniehy and Harpur were wasted on stopping a titled NSW Legislative Council, rather than campaigning for a Republican NSW self-government.
The challenge for Australian Republicans remains providing a \"clearly\" superior form of republican government to the existing system. And it will have to be done without the present politicians being involved. The 1999 minimal republic was an example of the existing politicians being self-serving.
Keating and Howard had no desire to see the near-absolute power of the PM be compromised. The self-serving nature of politicians can be seen in the electoral reforms as well. Apart from Steele Hall, all electoral reforms have been to entrench the incumbent majority government. I would not be surprised if the present politicians would be all for a Republic if it helped entrenched their party in power.
That is what we face.
Even though Australians do want a Republic, and a popularly elected Head of State, the politicians are deaf, dumb and blind to it. What they want is more power, and the entrenchment and permanency of that power. Why do they hate us so?
cam
Comments