Australian Republic a long way off?

By Myint Zan

VICTORIA, Australia (JP): Australian Prime Minister John Howard recently had an 'audience' -- as some Australian media outlets described the meeting -- with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting in Durban, South Africa.

During the meeting, the prime minister of Australia personally informed the queen that she would also -- as per the Nov. 6 Australian referendum result -- remain the queen of Australia.

Australians went to the polls on Nov. 6 to vote yes or no to a proposal to replace the queen and her representative the governor general with a president nominated by the prime minister, seconded by the leader of the opposition and appointed by a two- thirds majority of a joint sitting of members of the Federal Parliament of Australia.

By a 55 percent to 45 percent majority, Australians voted no and opted -- for a variety of reasons or perhaps no reason at all -- for the current constitutional monarchy. In a postreferendum interview the prime minister described the defeat of the republic as "comprehensive".

Yet Howard's statement is only partially correct. Yes, the defeat of the referendum proposal was sweeping both in terms of the (un)popular votes cast and in terms of constitutional requirement.

It should be noted here that the Australian constitution would have to be amended if Australia were to become a Republic. The Australian constitution stipulates that any amendment must be approved by the Australian electorate in a nationwide referendum. For the amendment to become effective a 'double majority' would be required. Firstly, a majority of all Australian voters would have to approve the amendment. Secondly and concomitantly, a majority of voters in a majority of states within the Commonwealth of Australia -- that is four states out of six -- would also have to approve the proposed changes to the constitution.

The proposal to establish a republic was not only resoundingly defeated nationwide; it failed to be carried in any state of Australia. Hence, Howard is justified in stating that the defeat of the yes case was comprehensive. Nevertheless, even Howard is likely to admit -- perhaps reluctantly -- that at least some, if not a majority of those who voted no, are not avowed or even nominal monarchists.

How then, can one interpret this result? Firstly, by looking at and analyzing the opinion polls themselves. All prereferendum polls correctly predicted that the yes case would be soundly defeated as indeed it was. One poll also indicated that a majority (about 53 percent) who would vote against the proposal would still want a republic.

According to a plethora of postmortem analysis, the proposed republic model failed for a combination of the following overlapping reasons: *"True-blue monarchists" (up to one-third of the no voters). * The innate conservatism of the Australian electorate (the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it brigade) together with the fear of change and the unknown. * The "don't know, don't care" voters who voted no because they were required to compulsorily vote by law -- on pain of a fine of A$ 50 (about US$30-35$) or showing good cause -- and who resent being forced to vote on an issue they don't care about. * Direct-electionists who distrusted the politicians to choose a president and would like to directly-elect one albeit they know not how and under which model. * Perhaps most importantly, the unholy alliance between the monarchists, statists -- who prefer the status quo -- and the direct-electionists in advocating a no vote together with the vigorous campaign by prime minister John Howard against this "politicians' republic". * The historical precedent that no constitutional amendment can be passed in Australia unless at least it has bi-partisan support and only if the prime minister of the day actively campaigns for it.

Within a few days of the defeat of the so-called "politicians' republic", Kim Beazely, the leader of the Opposition, vowed that if the Labor Party won the forthcoming federal election, due in less than two years, it would hold a "non-binding plebiscite" as to the simple question of whether Australians want a republic or not at the next-next election (that is the election after the next election if Labor wins office at the next election).

If the voters say yes in the plebiscite and if Labor wins the next-next election, Parliament would thrash out two models: namely indirect (Parliamentary-elect) and the model of a direct-election of a president and these models would again be put in another plebiscite. And the model that won the majority of votes in the second plebiscite would finally be put to a referendum about three months after that plebiscite. And if a majority of all Australian voters and a majority of voters in a majority of states approve of that model in the referendum, then, viola!, Australia would become a republic.

One does not need to be a logician or a pessimist to see how difficult it is for any form of Australian republic to arise in the foreseeable future.

Under Kim Beazley's formulaic proposal this triple win -- possibly spread over a period of five to nine years -- would have to be achieved and Labor would have to at least win the next two federal elections consecutively.

The next edition of the Macquarie Australian-English Dictionary should use the Beazley blueprint for a republic to explain the meaning of the term "contingency".

In the aftermath of the referendum result a few conservatives or super-minimalists are also advocating their own proposals to bring about a republic. Adopting the Australian republicans' statement that an Australian should be Australia's head of state, these closet monarchists are arguing that a Parliamentary Act should be promulgated formally stating that the governor general is the head of the state while still maintaining the queen (or maybe Prince Charles or William) as the sovereign or crown.

This not only circumvents the double majority requirement of the Australian constitution but is also a cynical ploy to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people or, to quote from a Burmese saying, to cover a dead elephant with a goat skin.

One should add that the monarchists have successfully done just that in their deceptive campaign leading to the recent referendum.

Many Australians who voted yes expressed their belief and their hope that an Australian republic would materialize one day. Yet this writer fears that even if a republic were to be resurrected it would not be Lazarus-like or immediate, even in the metaphorical sense.

As a student of international law and as, one trusts, a supporter of just and progressive causes this writer is wont to ponder two utterly different scenarios somewhat like comparing apples and oranges: whether Palestinians would get their own (actual) State or Australia would become an (actual) republic -- not the phony republic of the super-minimalists described above.

Both scenarios have been described as inevitable even by some, if not most, Israelis on the one hand and at least by some Australian monarchists on the other. The slight, tentative and reluctant money would be for the Palestinians and for this one could take solace from the fact that Palestinians have waited for more than 50 years but that serious and concerted efforts toward an Australian republic commenced only about a decade or so ago.

The Burmese have another saying: "When the time is right the thin cow will kick". For all brands of republicans in Australia, the creature that is before them is neither a fat nor a thin cow but perhaps a big (republican) mouse which may, at times, irritate the monarchists and those who prefer the status quo but which can by no means "kick". It will be some time before this creature mutates or evolves into a (thin) cow which will kick.

The writer is a lecturer at the School of Law at Deakin University in Victoria, Australia.