Does the ARM want an Australian Republic or just no Monarchy?

More disturbingly, its inspiration is not that current constitutional arrangements are unworkable or tyrannous, but rather the search for a ‘national identity’ and Australian nationalism. Hal Colebatch describes this search as follows;

This nationalism has its roots in traditional Australian nationalism, a creature of the old Left. Though some may idealise the heady brew of an anti-Imperialist, anti-English, working-class desire for an ‘independent’ Australia, it was often ignorant, narrow-minded and xenophobic bigotry. This old nationalism and desire for an ‘independent’ Australia is largely the result of what one writer called "the unquenchable Gaelic resentment of the English yoke."

While the more politically incorrect elements of this nationalism have faded away or been forgotten and attracted a middle-class and educated audience, the refrain "Let's make the head of state one of us" points to its unattractive beginnings. It is un-Australian, we are told, not to want a republic. Keating told the Queen Australians wanted a republic, but only 35 per cent of Australians supported the idea. It seems that majority, who didn’t want a republic, didn’t really count. They were un-Australian. One can’t help but see the ghost of Robespierre in the arrogance of that assumption.

Much can be done to improve the Australian system of government, but as Sir David Smith observed, politicians and bureaucrats could do it with no change to the constitution. It may not sound as exciting, but the results maybe more republican in outcome than any changes proposed by the ARM. Surely Australia’s maturity would be better demonstrated by constitutional change for reasons advocated by the likes of Paddy O’Brien, or (better still in my mind) those alluded to by Sir David, than the flatulent reasons of ‘national identity’.