What Merit in defeating the republican referendum?

What has John Howard in common with, Joseph Lister, Florence Nightingale, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, Edward Elgar, Field Marshals Roberts, Foch, and Joffre, Robert Bridges, John Galsworthy, John Masefield, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Augustus John, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, Albert Schweitzer, Henry Moore, Edward Forster, Isaiah Berlin, Kenneth Clark, Laurence Olivier, john Gielgud, Leonard Cheshire, Sydney Nolan, Graham Greene, Mother Teresa, Tom Stoppard, David Attenborough, David Hockney and Nelson Mandela?

Nothing at all except that they are all recipients of that very quaint British royal insignia, The Order of Merit. John Howard the most recent on 1 January 2012.

According to former British diplomat, Stanley Martin, who has written an exhaustive and rather pompous history of the award, it was instituted by the somewhat dissolute, Edward VII on 26 June 1902. It was to have been the date of his coronation but instead he suffered acute appendicitis and his crowning, by necessity, was delayed.

Even Stanley Martin thinks Bertie an unlikely founder of the award, which sensibly he never awarded to himself – merit not being one of his strong points. Bertie, who only ever read one book in his life, that being the romantic novel, 'East Lynne', by Mrs. Henry Wood, was not known for possessing an intellect. He did however father a number of illegitimate children, in line with a long royal tradition of philandering.

Bertie's father said of him, 'his intellect is of no more use than a pistol packed in the bottom of a trunk if one were attacked in the robber-infested Apennines'; and coming from his father that was quite something.

Bertie received inspiration for his award from his German relatives, before his father and Great Britain went to war against them. In 1740 King Frederick II of Prussia instituted an award known as the Pour le Merite. It was an Order into which military officers and civilians could be admitted. In a portent of things to come, King Frederick William III, in 1810, decreed that the award should only be given to military officers. The award had a French name because, as you would expect, and in common with the Russian royal family, the language of the court was French.

The award was commonly known as the Blue Max, and was handed out to German pilots in WWI who shot down their British and allied counterparts. In any event when Bertie's brother-in-law, King Frederick III (father of Kaiser Bill) died in 1888, after a considerate 99 day reign, Bertie was a bit cut up and at the compulsory funeral, in conversation with his sister, decided to implement an equivalent British award. His mother, in common with other well known monarchs, was not as accommodating as much admired Freddie. Bertie , as noted, had to wait until 1902 and by that stage things were becoming a little competitive with nephew Bill, otherwise known as Kaiser Bill, who was really starting to strut his stuff.

The Statutes of the Order of Merit were promulgated on 23 June 1902. Stanley Martin says, "The Preamble, with all its royal flourishes, recites the authority of the Letters Patent passed under the Statutes...The Order of Merit is to have a Sovereign and one class of Members. That class is to consist of Ordinary and Honorary Members. The Ordinary Members are to be subjects of the Crown who:

may have rendered exceptionally meritorious service in Our Navy and our Army, or who may have rendered exceptionally meritorious service towards the advancement of Art, Literature and Science."

There can only be 24 Members at any one time. Prince Philip and Prince Charles are both members; Philip because he is the royal consort and Charles because he is the heir to the throne and a conservationist, so already we see the merit thing being stretched a bit.

There is no doubt that many of the recipients are people of exceptional merit, others perhaps not.

One looks to see where John Howard might have achieved exceptional merit; perhaps going to war in Iraq without the consent of the Australian Parliament and Governor-General. Vilifying asylum seekers and ignoring and setting aside Australian Immigration Law in respect to their treatment and claims or the vilification and humiliation of Aboriginals under the Intervention. Merit is not a concept normally associated with John Howard. So why was he recognised in this way by foreigner who also happens to be the head of our country?

Several other Commonwealth Prime Ministers have received the Order of Merit, they are, Jan Christian Smuts of South Africa, William Mackenzie King, Lester Pearson and Jean Chretien of Canada. An examination of their respective claims might provide a clue as to why John Howard was considered exceptionally meritorious by our Sovereign Queen because, it can safely be said, although reasons are not given by Her Majesty, John Howard has not excel led in the Arts, Literature or Science.

Jan Smuts was a General in the Boer Army which fought the British from 1899-1902. He was instrumental in persuading the Boer leaders to accept the peace terms. As a Minister in the Botha government he worked for the formation of the Union of South Africa as a dominion (of the British Empire) in 1910. Lloyd George appointed him to the British War Cabinet in 1917. He put forward a blueprint for developing the notion of the Commonwealth that became the Balfour Declaration of 1926. He was the principal member of a committee under President Wilson which drafted the covenant for the League of Nations. Smuts wanted to support Britain against Hitler in 1939. Hertzog the Prime Minister did not, he was defeated on the floor of the House and Smuts became Prime Minister. Once more he became a member of the British war cabinet. He assisted with the creation of the United Nations. He received the award in 1947 along with the Canadian Prime Minister William Mackenzie King.

Stanley Martin says, "Mackenzie King did not come unadorned to the Order of Merit, despite the fact that Canada had not taken British honours since 1919...the palace (with the OM in mind) consulted Lord Salisbury, who had been Dominions Secretary in the war time coalition...He was in favour, but wondered about Mackenzie King's qualifications for the OM from which he thought 'politicians were specifically excluded', unless, like Smuts and Churchill they had other accomplishments." However Salisbury wrote, 'so great an honour to him would be regarded as an honour to the Commonwealth as a whole.' The British High Commissioner in Ottawa supported the nomination. Martin says, "Years later, Mackenzie King's decision to accept the OM was still a source of comment in Canada." On his death The Times in London said that, "...as a reward of wise and understanding policy, he brought a united Canada into the war, and in spite of the strains imposed on her, continued to preserve her unity."

Lester Pearson received the OM in 1972. He worked tirelessly to maintain the integrity of the United Nations. He was involved in negotiations over the future of Palestine and the ending of the war in Korea. He was President of the General Assembly in 1952 and in the Suez crises he was instrumental in securing a cease-fire and the dispatch of a peace keeping force, resulting in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. In his memoirs he noted that, "...the Queen had come to consider me not only as a most experienced prime ministerial adviser, but as a close and valued friend." Stanley Martin says, "He was the first choice for Secretary-General of the newly established NATO...He represented Canada at the significant meeting of Prime Ministers in London to consider the Indian wish to become a republic but remain in the Commonwealth. He played a key role at and away from the table...During the meeting Pearson had tea with Princess Elizabeth and her family. He was able to make baby Prince Charles smile..." However, "It was in the field of improving the balance between English and French Canada that he had what he considered to be his most important achievement."

The most recent Canadian Prime Minister to receive the OM was Jean Chretien in 2009. He supported Canadian involvement in NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia and he committed troops to Afghanistan, but in terms of receiving the OM his greatest achievement were his strenuous and successful efforts to prevent Quebec succeeding from Canada.

Besides an impressive list of achievements in international relations the common theme amongst Commonwealth recipients of the OM has been saving some aspect of the Commonwealth for the Crown. On this basis it would seem that John Howard's claim to the award was his wrecking of the Republican Movement in Australia and saving the country for the Queen. Both in this and in accepting the award Howard has shown himself to have interests other than the Nation at heart.

Despite claims in the Australian media former Prime Minister, supporter of the monarchy and admirer of the Queen, Robert Menzies, did not receive the OM. He saved nothing of value to the crown. For his fawning and some might say craven loyalty he received a Companion of Honour and was invested as a Knight of the Thistle and made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, yes, I kid you not.

I was of the school that the Queen was a harmless and dear old thing. She was a part of my life. As a child I waved flags as her car went past during royal visits. I thought she should be allowed to serve out her term before we once again looked at the question of the republic. Not anymore. She has shown that she is concerned above all else with preserving her influence and in this Howard connived with her.

Shackled as we are to a mouldering monarchy, burdened with past scandals and a feeble heir, Australia has little to be proud of. Lacking pride and self-confidence we have been prepared to allow the United States to dictate our foreign and defence policies. We have a reduced vision of our future and our place in the world simply because we refuse to take responsibility for ourselves.

As a matter of course the Queen notifies the Prime Minister of the award of OM to a citizen. Although the award is the gift of the Monarch, as we have seen others can come into play. Stanley Martin says, "In the highly unlikely event of an 'outrageous' appointment, especially if it had political overtones, the Prime Minister could not realistically absolve himself from all involvement."

Lloyd George successfully opposed the nomination of Gilbert Murray. Stanley Martin says, "Nevertheless, he was daring the King to over-rule his advice – and have it known that he had done so. No monarch could afford to do that, then or now.

A careful – and apparently successful – balance has therefore been struck between the Sovereign's special rights in relation to the Order and the Prime Minister's ultimate constitutional responsibility."

It can safely be assumed that Julia Gillard was informed by the Palace of the intention to bestow the OM on John Howard and it can equally be assumed that she concurred in what I believe to be an outrageous appointment. Having acted with such blatant self interest Howard has, in my view, substantially pushed the envelope toward an Australian Republic.