An Introduction to the Honorary President

Permalink, Jul 2005, dlatimer, 1230 words, 25 comments

We Australians are looking for a republican model for our future. We want to elect our Head of State, but we don't want to destablise our system of government or worse, unravel our constitutional safeguards.

The Honorary President would be a directly-elected, non-executive, apolitical and Australian Head of State. They would be an ambassador for Australian goodwill, our national representative above politics and independent of the Prime Minister.

Many will say this is impossible, however under this model the Governors and Governor-General would still be there as constitutional umpires, impartial yet able to exercise reserve powers.

Australia became a nation in 1901, through the federation of its six British colonies. During those days of great empires, it was appropriate that the Queen of England sit at the apex of the Australian constitutional system.

Today, it is Queen Elizabeth II who is our Head of State, but times have changed. The British Empire is gone and Australia is independent. In practice, she has no power or influence over Australian affairs.

The Queen appoints seven Australians to be her representatives. These distinguished Governors and Governors-General open our parliaments, sign legislation into law and appoint judges and ambassadors. They are often referred to as our constitutional umpires.

Many Australians want to take the final step of independence by removing the Queen from our constitution. With the Honorary President Republican Model we may take that step without any risk to our cherished democracy.

The basis of the model is elegantly simple -- the people elect an Honorary President to succeed (or replace) the Queen in her Australian role.

This would mean the people become sovereign and our Head of State will be Australian.

The Queen today has only a ceremonial function. In Australia, her sole duty is to appoint the Governor-General and state Governors. When doing this she always follows the recommendations of the Prime Minister and state Premiers.

It will be likewise with the Honorary President. The constitution will limit his or her powers to ceremonial activities and the appointment of the Governor-General and state Governors under the same rule.

Before we elect the Honorary President, we must nominate the candidates from whom we'll make our choice.

Under the Honorary President Republican Model, three candidates will be nominated by public petition with only the most supported candidates appearing on the ballot. This means any Australian citizen can become our Head of State.

Each of the six state parliaments can also make one nomination of a former Governor or Lieutenant Governor of their state. The Federal Parliament can make an additional nomination of a former Governor-General.

Our former governors have vital on-the-job experience, so people will already know they can do the job well. An added bonus is that party politics is kept right out of the nomination process.

The term of the Honorary President is five years after which extensions of six months may be given, up to a maximum of eight years.

The extensions keep the Honorary President in office for about two terms of parliament or about six years. However, if elections are called too early, the basic term of five years is guaranteed.

If the Honorary President becomes incapacitated or breaks the constitutional rules, the federal parliament can remove the Honorary President using the same procedures as for dismissal of a High Court Judge. The parliament must provide a good reason and the Honorary President has a right to defend themselves.

The Honorary President will have a non-executive, symbolic, ceremonial role, working for the good of the community. They will be an Australian ambassador-at-large, a role model, a patron and a councillor.

Overseas, the Honorary President would be promoting Australian business, innovation and culture. Most importantly they would accept the role as an ambassador for Australian goodwill.

In effect, this role would be an extension of the work presently done by our overworked Governor-General and six state governors, the first such expansion in over 100 years.

These exemplary men and women continue their critical role as our constitutional umpires, making sure that governments follow the rules and respect democratic principles.

They also continue their ceremonial roles, upholding community values as well as uniting and developing the great tapestry that is modern Australian society.

And for our Army, Navy and Air Force, the Governor-General continues to be their commander-in-chief.

The Honorary President Model involves only minor changes to the Australian Constitution. Only the twenty sections which refer to the Queen would need to be updated -- about 1/18th of the total.

The model retains the Governor-General under exactly the same conditions of appointment and holding exactly the same powers. This means the model is just as safe as our present constitution.

The balance between the political power of the Prime Minister and the constitutional power of the Governor-General is also continued. It is this balance that has protected our democracy for over 100 years.

As for the Honorary President, their powers are so limited by the constitution, there's no role in actual government, no role in any parliament and certainly no political role whatsoever.

Consequently, the Honorary President would be independent of the Prime Minister and the government. Their ability command the respect and support of the people will be magnified by the democratic nature of their office.

Unlike the Governor-General, the Honorary President would be free to speak or speak-out, like any other responsible citizen.

Although some may worry that this would lead to a war of words with the government, we must remember that the Honorary President is set up to be a non-political institution, above politics.

In times of division, it is more likely that the Honorary President will find words which are reconciling and unifying rather than words which will create further division or protest.

The Honorary President Republican Model is a solution for the whole of Australia and made in the true spirit of federation.

Most alternative republican models allow for the states to retain their links to the Queen, even if a republic is established. This makes no sense.

Under this proposal each state is provided the same protection and independence as the federal government, just as it was intended by the Founders of Federation. It continues the same unified system we enjoy today.

In conclusion, The Honorary President Model incorporates the advantages of direct-election with the conservative features of the present constitution. It provides a constitutional framework that is consistent with federalism, natural law and fundamental freedoms.

The proposed changes to our constitution under the model are minimal and flexible. The concepts within the model are readily supportable. There is a Head of State who is independent of the Prime Minister, yet is principally a ceremonial figurehead. The constitutional conventions underpinning our Westminster system of responsible government are maintained and not compromised in any sense - real or perceived.

This model is a new and unique development in the republican debate. It was developed after learning the lessons of the republican referendum defeat. It shows that developing practicable new models can provide solutions with the potential to unite the republican movements and deliver a constitutional systems better than the status quo in every respect.

(For further information see this Senate Submission )

Comments

cam . # .

Excellent first go:

Put this as an \"a href\" tag;

(For further information read the Senate Submission http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/title.html)

cam

siento . # .

Elected, apolitical and no power - not possible: The Queen of England should not be Australia\'s head of state. She is not an Australian and does not represent Australia. However, there are a lot of problems with a directly elected head of state.

If a president were elected who would run the campaigns etc? Who would get the signatures? Sure, sometimes there might be a non party candidate, but in general there would be just party candidates. The president would then become political.

I have never voted for a Prime Minister and neither has anyone else in Australia. They have merely voted for a person in their electorate who may be leader of a political party. The president that you are speaking of would be the only person in Australia with a mandate from all Australians.

This person would have to be a very bright, capable person who won an election (after some time almost certainly someone from a political party as described in the first paragraph) then this person would be told to sign laws and not do much else. The problem is, such a person would almost certainly exercise their considerable abilities to do what politicians always do, that is, obtain more power. At this point the Australian system of government is thrown into chaos.

The idea of president being appointed from the governers of states is an interesting idea and has much to be said for it. Running some kind of vote, with perhaps judges deciding might have something to say for it. This would avoid the cost of running a campaign and would avoid politicians as well.

Australia will become a Republic in our lifetimes, the question is what kind, when and how and these sorts of things should be discussed, but Australia\'s federal parliamentary system should not be touched, if possible.

avocadia . # .

Apolitical:

I see two issues with the vision of an apolitical President. Firstly, if the president is directly elected, then at some point there will be campaigning. I can\'t see how politics won\'t enter it during a campaign. The position can\'t help but be political once you give the power of filling it to the people. The Govenor General position is largely apolitical because of tradition and because the prime minister has the power to appoint the GG. Change that and you change the dynamic.

If nothing else, the president will have the bully pulpit, which itself can be a check on the power of the legislature. I imagine the ALP wishes they held a honourary presidential position right now.

I\'d also argue the point that there is a good balance between the PMs office and the Govenor General. I think the Honourary President should be granted more powers than the GG has now. At minimum they should have the power to force the High Court to review the constitutionality of legislation.

Felix the Cassowary . # .

The McGarvie Model: I\'d like to compare your system to the McGarvie Model, and hear your thoughts on the topic. How is this better?

The biggest disadvantage is that the Honorary President model provides for an elected head of state. This necessarily involves politics and a change in the power balance, even if the candidates are drawn exclusively from retired vice-regal-officeholders. By contrast, the McGarvie Model\'s Constitutional Council is automatically selected, so politics will be harder to enter into.

The biggest advantage of your system is that it retains a single body as head of state of all the parts of our Federation: the McGarvie Model has a separate council for each state.

Myself, I prefer to avoid the title \'President\', especially for a nonfunctional role. I consider the role of our nominal head of state to be that of the Appointer of our practical head of state, and I think the title Appointer should be used to emphasise this. Also to emphasise the Uniquely Australian aspects of our constitution. (Also, I think the role of representing Australia to the World should remain the Governor-General\'s; if not, the power balance between the GG, the PM and the Appointer is altered perhaps too much.)

Any minimalist model has some interesting problems though. If the model is truely minimalist, there remains some body that is the source of justice, in the way that the Crown is. Presently (unless I\'m wrong), criminal cases are R. vs defendant, with R. standing for Regina (or Rex ). If the change is minimalist, who is R then? Does it become G. (Governor)? (or G.-G. in Commonwealth cases). Does it remain the Appointer (the Queen/Constitutional Council/Honorary President)? Does it become the People (as it does in most republics), in which case the change is no longer minimalist? How about remaining R. , but standing for Res publica i.e. the Latin for Commonwealth; but that only works for Commonwealth cases, and state ones will need something different.

In general the concept of the Crown needs to be discussed further in minimalist models. (Crowns as symbolism aren\'t necessarily an unrepublican thing, though, and we could be a republic with a crown if we wanted to.)

Another question with this model: is why not just make the Governor-General popularly elected, and define the reserve powers explicitly so that the Governor-General has a valid and understood political roll. That would probably be enough that the GG and PM wouldnt be stepping on each other\'s toes.

The Honourary President model adds a third dynamic in the power balance, I suspect both the GG and PM will feel threatened politically and popularly by the Honourary President. Of those three top tier positions, only one has the direct legitimacy of the people, and that is the Honourary President.

It is a good permutation on our existing system, but doesnt address the poor seperation of powers between our informal/formal executives, nor the problem of political legitimacy that will stem from being popularly elected.

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?

Meta related to this article: I created a new section called \"models of government\", and took the liberty of changing this article\'s section to that. I also put in the \"South Sea Republic\" box on the right hand side, a link to \" Republican Models \".

dlatimer . # .

Elected, apolitical and no power - Possible: Thanks for your comments. You have raised very important issues in accessing the worth of the model. Rather than reply ad-hoc, I propose that I contribute a second article explaining how the Honorary President\'s power would be constitutionally limited, why I believe no mandate would be generated and idenitifying the anti-political strategies, of which the nomination of former governors is a integral part.

Apolitical: Thanks for your comments. As explained in a previous reply, rather than reply ad-hoc, I propose that I answer these concerns in a second article.

The McGarvie Model: Your comparison with the McGarvie Model is quite insightful. This model attempts to tie the heart of the McGarvie system with direct-election. Aside from the advantage you suggested, I dont believe a republic can be established via referendum without an evident direct-election component. The use of the adjective \'Honorary\' is designed to move away from the powers usually associated with presidents and would welcome discussion on this important point. In my Senate submission (see link end of article) I suggested that R=presidency, which would be an entity representing the executive government, but still open to suggestions on this.

Repsonse to 2 replies from Cam: Again, thanks for some thoughtful comments. There are plenty of academic constitutional lawyers and others exploring the idea of codification and they have not come to a consensus even after decades of debate and proposals. If these experts could come up with a definitive proposal then the republican debate would be in the parlous state it currently is in. As you can see, I am looking at the model issue with \"new eyes\" reviewing the fundamentals - for example I would argue that the \"third dynamic\" presently exists as the Queen. The question is how well can we replace her (and her extremely limited political role) with an Australian institution.

The politicians did give me some coverage in the Senate report \'Road to a Republic\' which shows that some of them dont hate us, and are willing to investigate these issues. I agree that resolution is extremely difficult to achieve, which is one reason why I am contributing a model with both minimalist and progressive elements.

Replacing the Queen without change: The simple solution to replacing the Queen without affecting the dynamic is to make the Appointership/Honorary Presidentship not a full time position. The Queen currently has a number of other jobs in addition to her role as head of state (Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand and so forth). If the Appointer maintained his job, say, at the local factory down the road, it\'d be clear to all and sundry (including himself) that he\'s not intended to be a major powerholder, but instead a formal and failsafe part of our constitution.

Of course, the chances of getting a local factory worker as our head of state are slim to none at best, especially if only three nominations of non-ex-viceregal-officeholders is allowed, unless all campaining is done exclusively by government departments.

I would, thought, love to have a local factory worker as our head of state. Not an ex-factory worker, nor a factory worker on five years unpaid leave, but an actual, honest-to-god factory worker.

Scrymarch . # .

Sortition: Use a lottery to produce either an Appointer or a pool of Appointer candidates, which are then voted on.

Even then a telemarketer or council worker is a more likely result.

Telemarkerters are fine, too :): The loving of local factory workers was not anything inherit in local factory workers, but having a relatively low paid, average head of state. Telemarketers, council workers and Uni students

I do like the Sortition proposal. So here stands my proposed Republican model at present:

The Head of State, for both the Commonwealth and each State, remains the same person.

The Head of State uses the title Appointer during their role as Appointer, and reverts to Mr/Ms/Dr/whatever they had before hand at the end.

The Appointer is chosen by direct election. Campaigns are limited to authorised (jointly by all candidates and governments) information packages and the like.

The candidates for appointers are selected by sortition. At least one resident of each state/territory with representation in the HoR/Senate should be selected, but if more than seven candidates are to be selected the remainder are chosen from the Commonwealth without regard to where they come from.

The Appointer\'s term is by default five years; it is extended by six months up to a maximum of eight years total if the election would coincide with either a general election or Governor\'s/Governor General\'s term expiring. If the eight years expires, the election/vice regal term expiry gets extended by six months. If the office is vacated, the most recent outgoing vice-regal office holder is interim Appointer until the conditions are appropriate for a new Appointer\'s election.

The Appointer is paid a minimum rate that is not intended to support them (but does not contribute to assessable income for welfare purposes), except when for a week or part thereof they are actively performing their duties as appointer. By making the job of Appointer part time, more people will be able to do it: students and people early in their carrier for whom five years off may mean a lifetime off; small business owners whose business will disappear after much less than five years; researchers who may be preempted by someone else, and many others. Additionally, in many areas being or having been an Appointer will probably increase their ability to earn income in the private field anyway.

The Appointer\'s duties are limited beyond those the Queen currently actively fulfils. I would suggest they can (and must) appoint/terminate Governors and Governors-General on the advice of the respective Premier or Prime Minister. They should also retain some failsafe powers, so that if the Governor/Governor-General acts without advice or fails to act on advice, the respective lower house can ask the Appointer to act (to dissolve parliament/change premier etc.). In this situation, the Appointer is entitled, but not required (by convention or by constitution), to act.

The limitation on campagins is intended to reduce the politics and ensure that anyone (even people who aren\'t rich and lack connections, including Uni students, the unemployed and telemarketers) can aspire to our Head of State. Nevertheless, I\'m sure there will be problems with this model. Their powers will need to be codified in most cases (except when they veto a viceroy, though the conditions to allow that will need to be codified).

Another problem I\'ve thought about while thinking of this is that most people will be familiar with the Commonwealth issues and the State/Territory issues of the State/Territory they\'re in. But I doubt a Territorian Appointer will know much about what\'s happening in Tasmania. To help counteract this, I might suggest they be given a fortnight before they ever need to act after receiving advice and be allowed to take leave from their other job to do so (as well as travelling to the respective area if needs be, paid for by the respective government). The difficulty is of course that not everyone has the capacity to up and go on short notice. I\'m not sure how to deal with this. Maybe not everyone can become our Head of State...

Alternatively, we might have a separate Appointer for each State (and base terms of six years), with Commonwealth Appointer rotating. (Which could in some ways be the Australian equivalent of Switzerland\'s executive council, even though it\'s radically different.) I don\'t really like this method; one aspect of the monarchy at the moment is the ultimate head of each state and the Commonwealth is the same person.

It needs to be stressed that the Governor-General retains the role of Head of State in international affairs. The Governor-General meets foreign heads, and is met by foreign heads. And so forth.

Discuss!

Structural transition problems: The problem with a transition from constitutional monarchy to republic is the seperation of powers in relation to the Executive.

The Westminster is a hack, designed to route around the formal political power of the monarch, yet leave them in a ceremonial position. The Honorary President model is entirely consistent with the Westminster style of government. It is a very minimalist model.

But it doesnt address the problem of executive power in our system. It doesnt address rights, which were an innovation of the American political system in 1787. It also doesnt address the near absolute informal power of the Prime Minister, nor the informal Executive power of the Governor-General.

I believe the 1999 referendum failed for several reasons; one, the professional politicians got a hold of it, and no-one trusts those bastards - not even their own mums; two, people wanted to elect the head of state; and three that the republican referendum was not grounded in any wider Australian Republican doctrine so that a change in our government became self-evident.

The Honorary President covers the second deficiency by giving Australians the chance to elect the President, which I think is exceedingly important. But I dont see how it ties into a wider Australian Republican doctrine.

The success of the American Republic was that it was grounded in the Republican doctrine of Jefferson and Madison. The ideology still underpins the popular perception of the American Republic today.

Unfortunately in Australia, we dont have the strong perception of an Australian Republican doctrine. The \"republic already\" or \"republic in all but name\" have managed to pollute it sufficiently that the subservent doctrine of a constitutional monarchy appears mixed with Republican doctrine. Foreign policy is the biggest constitutional monarchy doctrinal cringe.

I think any proposed model must be founded on an Australian Republican doctrine, that will underpin the polity, society and culture. An ideal of governance that is also practical, especially in relation to some unique aspects of the Australian nation-state. I think that is the challenge for Australian Republicans in having a Republican form of government accepted by a majority.

Some issues with your model:

Campaigns are limited to authorised (jointly by all candidates and governments) information packages and the like.

While attempting to keep money and the parties out, that also limits the creativity of those running for election. If Brian Mannix wants to run (after getting sortitioned) for HoS, why cant he do a Hot-Black as a political stunt?

The Appointer\'s term is by default five years; it is extended by six months up to a maximum of eight years total if the election would coincide with either a general election or Governor\'s/Governor General\'s term expiring.

It would be simpler and easier to make it every second election cycle. Even better if your Republican constitution entrenches fixed term elections on the House/Senate every three years.

The Appointer is paid a minimum rate that is not intended to support them

The state constitutions are thick with the pensions of the Governor and Chief Justice. Part self-serving, but also so that lobbyist/facitonal money doesnt corrupt them. I know you are aiming at a part time HoS, where it isnt their primary job, but I would ensure that they were well remunerated. Having them on a part-time style payment would also foster resentment from the HoS over how well paid the GG and members of parliament are. That may cause them to become politically active against parliament.

Hating the people:

The politicians did give me some coverage in the Senate report \'Road to a Republic\' which shows that some of them dont hate us, and are willing to investigate these issues.

My comment was written flippantly. It is obvious though, there is a tension between what the people want, and the limits to which existing politicians in government are prepared to give up their existing power to any Republican form of government.

The Cassowary-Sortition Model: It is great to see that someone can pick the ideas from the Honorary President Model and develop a reasonable model in a short period of time. I encourage you to develop this model further as you will, no doubt, come up with enhancements and improvements over what I\'ve presented. I can include it on the Related Models page of the HonPres website In particular, I am interested in workable campaign rules, so expect that any proposals for that will be snapped up.

Minor pedant:

It doesnt address rights, which were an innovation of the American political system in 1787.

Richard\'s brother John would probably beg to differ on that. As would Charles I. It\'s probably fair to suggest that the Westminster system has its roots in the idea of rights and limitation of power.

Hell, you can take it back further than that. The Roman Republic\'s Tribunes of the People protected the rights of the plebians from the patricians.

An hourly rate for the appointer?: If you want to reward the Appointer but keep them part time, why not pay them $200 an hour?

By the way Felix, I like the model. It does seem a shame that the process would have to be so sober. I guess it\'s that sort of position though.

Fair comment: The US innovation was constitutionally enumerated rights that placed distinct limitations on government.

Thanks!: I will try to develop it further and right a nifty article on it, but I\'m a bit short of time, so it\'ll have to wait until I\'m procrastinating from something else... ;)

Or a weekly rate: The \'except when for a week or part thereof they are actively performing their duties as appointer\' part was meant to address that and similar issues. In a week they performed their constitutional duties, they would get paid a much higher rate of pay, probably exceeding the Prime Minister and Governor-General\'s weekly rate of pay.

The reason the active pay would be so much higher is to compensate for the fact that they only get it once every now and again, probably no more than seven times during their term.

If anyone wants to suggest alternatives to the campaign process, I\'m all ears, but it still has to discourage people with money, connections or previous media exposure having a significant advantage over those that don\'t. As you say, I suppose that\'s kind of going to require a generally sober process.

Why the Hon Pres is above politics: The article promised in respose this comment has now been posted

The Copernican Constitution: An article explaining the paradigm underpinning the Honorary President Model has been posted at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703 . Further opportunity for all to make comments (supportive or sceptical) to a new audience.

Comments

Most Popular

Australian Constitutions

Worth Reading

About Cam Riley