Prime Minister John Howard has made the correct observation, albeit belatedly, that becoming a republic would not hurt Australia. He made the observation when reaffirming his commitment to hold a referendum late next year on the republic in accordance with the model decided at this year’s constitutional convention.
He said, “I am of the view that whatever the outcome of that referendum, and I frankly don’t know what the outcome of the referendum will be, the fabric of the Australian community is not going to be any way damaged or hurt by the process.”
He is quite right. Australians are mature enough to debate the change and if there is to be one, which seems likely, those who voted against change would still uphold the Australian Constitution, is as much the same way that patriotic Australians embraced Advance Australia Fair after the event, even though they had supported God Save the Queen to remain as anthem.
The change to a republic is far more emotional and symbolic than of political consequence. None the less, it will be an important change. It will improve foreign perceptions of Australia and most Australians’ perception of themselves.
Mr Howard said the process of the convention itself proved that Australians would not be torn apart by the debate. That observation, too, is a correct one.
It may well be that originally Mr Howard held the convention because something had to be done and the issue could be got out of the way before the election. It may well be that even now Mr Howard, a constitutional monarchist, is only renewing his referendum commitment and saying there is no harm in the debate to ensure that he is not seen as yesterday’s man in the face of any leadership challenge that might arise from his poor election performance. Even so, the apparent shift in position is a welcome one as is the reaffirmation of the referendum.
Of course, the recognition that the fabric of the Australian community will not be damaged by either having a debate or, indeed, by changing to a republic should cause Mr Howard to have a closer look at his personal preference to retain the constitutional monarchy.
A key argument of constitutional monarchists has been that the present system has delivered political stability. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Other constitutional monarchists have argued that moving to a republic runs the risk of undermining our system of government of even delivering us into the hands of totalitarianism of one sort or the other. Now the move to a republic is essentially a move to having an Australian polity where the positions now occupied by the Queen and the Governor-General are combined into one position that can only be occupied by an Australian and chosen and removed in fact and form by Australians. Once one realises that that move will not cause political instability, the merits of the cosmetic change without being prejudiced by silly fears and red herrings.
It is an emotional question, more than anything else. Do we want to retain the residual ties to Britain? Do we want to retain a position in which the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of England?
It is fairly clear now, that a majority do not want that position to continue. The real question is whether exactly how is it to be changed.
Mr Howard, and his predecessor as Liberal leader, Alexander Downer, put the cart before the horse before the 1996 election in opting for a constitutional convention to look at all the options. It would have been better to have had an indicative referendum on the question, Do you want a republic? If no, nothing further would happen. If yes, a convention would concentrate solely on the question of what sort of republic. That would have drawn constitutional monarchists into that question. As it was they spent nearly all their energy fighting a republic. Moreover, the republicans split into people wanting a direct election and those who want an indirect one.
Some wanting a direct election voted against a republic if they could not have it on those terms, and might do so in the referendum Mr Howard has promised for next year. That presumably is the best hope the constitutional monarchists have of defeating the majority republicans in the community.
Another hope has quite properly been dashed by Mr Howard’s comments: that is the hope that a fear campaign can be mounted against a republic.
The fabric of Australian society is too strong for that. The political, economic and social institutions will remain strong and stable under a republic. Indeed, the likelihood is that they will be slightly more self-confident.