|
by AARON THOMAS |
. |
The promise that every Australian child would have a chance to become Australia's Head of State, seems an irresistible lure at first glance. And with such compelling slogans as "Give an Australian the head job," or the pink vote-oriented "Give an Aussie Queen a chance," who could demur? How could such a simple proposition fail when just weeks before Tony Blair had wiped away 800 years of history in the House of Lords with barely a murmur of dissent? Nonetheless, fail it did and for reasons many and varied. As the New York Times archly put it, the backers of the No vote "used the old British colonial tactic of divide and rule." The pro-republic vote was split over the question of directly electing a president by popular vote, or, the model on offer, a president nominated by committee and approved by parliament. While the concept of a non-elected president might seem anathema to those versed in the American system of government, it is a model used by around a quarter of the world's republics. In Australia's case it could have avoided the plague of politicking, megalomania and locusts accompanying election campaigns, for what is essentially a ceremonial role. When the would-have-been President wasn't busy memorising lists of national leaders and attending the opening of everything from Olympic Games to Vegemite jars, he/she would have held one real power -- the ability to sack a government and call fresh elections, should gridlock or extremism call for it. These are the so-called reserve powers currently held by the Queen and her representative in Australia, the Governor-General; and they have been used just once since Australia's Federation -- in the contentious sacking of Gough Whitlam's government in 1975. While the proposed model contained a finely arranged system of checks and balances between Prime Minister and President, the Yes campaign failed to convince poorer voters of it's safety. Monarchist's accusations of a "politician's president," which would send the country broke minting new coins whilst fading your curtains and nurturing suntanned Hitlers, raised fears in working-class suburbs and rural areas alike. Conservative but over-educated city dwellers on the other hand, were the backbone of the Yes vote, attracted by the modest, evolutionary changes in the new model. A result which moved some to proclaim, "An informed vote is a Yes vote." Others saw it as a rejection by those most powerless, of placing ever more power in the hands of a political elite. Either way, Australia's compulsory voting system was always going to see the silent majority have their say, be it ill-informed, contrary or just plain ornery. The pro-republicans failed dismally in winning them over. The result, a 55 percent vote against the republic. On the bright side, the country learnt that tackling constitutional reform is not to be taken lightly (or without a few stiff gins under your belt). In this brave new world order -- with countries falling left and right to internal chaos -- tinkering with your ticker is not to be trifled with. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", or so they say. And Australians, barely nationalistic at the best of times, weren't prepared to call in the undertakers just yet for the sake of some pleasing symbolism. Will Australia become a republic? Inevitably. Fewer than 10% actually want to retain the British monarchy as head of state. Will Australia become the Quebec of the antipodes? Possibly. New plebiscites are already being promised. But when change will come is anybody's guess. For now, someone ought to let George W. Bush know Queen Elizabeth is his safest bet. She rules more countries than anyone. God Save the Queen. But give an Australian the head job. AARON THOMAS RESIDES IN SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA. |
Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times contributor Aaron Thomas.
|
Copyright © 2001 The Coffee Shop Times
