Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Out with the old

By Ian Nance - posted Monday, 23 November 2015


We used to get around on horseback - now we drive a car. We used to ring up on a telephone by cranking a handle – now we press buttons.

We used to have corner shops which stocked a small range of general goods – now we visit supermarkets.

We used to make sure we had enough cash before the bank closed – now we use ATMs.

Advertisement

We used to take days to travel by train between capital cities – now we fly in an hour or two.

We used to be a nation of almost exclusively Anglo-Celtic origins – now we delight in a population from about two hundred different nationalities.

Once upon a time we used to believe that England was "home"; now we are wondering why we should have an English Head of State.

We've grown out of monarchical dependence, and now we are talking seriously about changing one of the fundamentals of our democracy to become a republic. Rebublic!

That word often suggests rebellion and radical change throwing out every tradition and basis of democracy because many republics came into being only as a result of bitter political battles, accompanied by the use of military force to achieve change.

Many countries wishing to become republics did so in their desire to shake off previous colonisation by bigger nations. Many of these early conquests were in pursuit of trade; new countries often possessed ingredients or products which were highly prized by exploiting colonisers.

Advertisement

Indiais one such example of a country which went through massive domination by England after becoming a significant part the British Empire.

Englandfirst arrived in India around 1600 in order to trade, and The British East India Company was formed to facilitate it. Although the French were there also, after the end of the Seven Years War which ran from1756 to1763 they lost their trading rights in India.

When this happened, the British East India Company began to establish greater control, aided by skillful diplomatic agreements with the Mughal rulers.

By the 1840's the British East India Company controlled of much of India; that country was in effect a company nation. However in a development which alarmed Britain, in 1857 the mercenary Sepoy troops used by the British East India Company rebelled against the English.

Life, law and governance became bad, thus following the rebellion the British government cancelled the charter of the British East India Company. In a dramatic move it took over management of India, making it a British Raj after around two hundred and sixty years of occupation.

Queen Victoria became the Empress of India, which remained a British colony until 1947 when the work of various national movements inspired by Mahatma Ghandi's concept of peaceful protest, led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947.

This created two independent dominions, India and Pakistan.

Indiaremained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India.

Pakistanremained a dominion until 1956, when it adopted its first republican constitution. In 1971, East Pakistan declared independence as the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

This era saw tumultuous occupation by a power initially motivated by the need to gain the special products of India. The particular special product which Australia had in abundance was space – space to house the huge number of convicts overcrowding England's gaols.

In settling Australia, England not only gained the space it needed including the traditional lands of our indigenes; it also gave us something incredibly valuable - the potential to develop a completely new ethos in the shape of the 'Aussie'.

Now, the time has come when that Aussie wishes to continue developing into a completely independent, self-ruling being, without any mandatory constitutional ties to the British monarch. I believe that this can be done without too much disruption to our existing democracy by retaining some of the concepts developed over the hundreds of strife-torn years which led to our present prized Westminster system of government.

My first proposal is that we retain the valuable abstract idea of the crown, which revolves around complete 'disinterest', but not 'un-interest', so that a firm, yet nebulous, overarching authority remains.

I would favour "The Crown" or "The Federation" to express this notion, rather than slightly authoritarian sounding titles such as "Government", "Republic", or "Dominion".

My next suggestion is that only an Australian national, either of indigenous or our collective migrant background, be appointed the supreme head of this body.

As an aid to smooth acceptance of constitutional change by our population, I believe that the title of the new head of state be "Governor-General".

This office would sit comfortably above existing state Governors and probably create a less radical image than would a title such as "President", with its political overtones.

It is important that whatever the name, the role differentiates between the focussed Executive capabilities run by a Prime Minister, and the broad, general, impartial overview of our complex organisational framework, overseen by our Head of State,

He or she should elected by the national populace after being pre-selected by a panel of independent members drawn from the House of Representatives and the Senate. This would create a ballot paper of candidates from which the people would choose their Governor-General for a term not linked to the electoral cycle.

Restricting panel membership to independent members of parliament is a step towards de-politicising the process. By limiting membership of the panel to persons not having a particular political allegiance would aid selection of candidates for the supervisory function, and allow free, honest, personal evaluation of the candidates' merits, helping ensure that the Governor-General's position remains apolitical.

I propose that candidacy be open only to people with a proven record of leadership and management of large, effective organisations. The sort of persons I envisage could be, but not restricted to, holders of previous senior defence command roles, experienced legal practitioners, medical experts, chief executives of successful business enterprises, leaders or heads of large volunteer organisations; in fact any person with experience in the successful management of large numbers of people and resources.

I stress that this ability for detached overview be purely the result of competence to analyse, reason, review, and communicate widely, rather than by holding some kind of personal mark or status, such as that of being a sportsman or having some kind of practical, as opposed to cognitive, skill.

We need good mental skills for a Governor-General, not simply good motor skills.

I suggest also that religious leadership should automatically preclude candidacy so as to ensure the separation between church and state. However, with the present decrease in religious observance and practice in today's society, the resulting ballot result would probably reject religious candidates in any case.

I write these thoughts and ideas as my on-line opinion of how we might commence abandoning our old ways and welcoming a change to the new. I think that we face an immense amount of discussion, planning and deliberation to get to a stage where we can stand alone as a more proudly independent nation.

My enthusiasm for change does not lessen my gratitude and respect for the valuable role that a monarch had on our evolution, nor diminish the tradition of warmth we have for a royal family whose constitutional dominance of our nationhood finally has become irrelevant.

We have enjoyed a carefully nurtured and protected childhood. Now that we have grown up it is time to confirm our maturity, and separate from our parents while still retaining deep affection for them.

The previous example of India highlights a nation which had done so with a vast societal and economic success; the times of empiric rule are well past for us.

Maturity requires us to become a republic.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ian Nance's media career began in radio drama production and news. He took up TV direction of news/current affairs, thence freelance television and film producing, directing and writing. He operated a program and commercial production company, later moving into advertising and marketing.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ian Nance

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ian Nance
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy