I'll second the Holden Republic in recommending that people read the section on the republic debate in the latest issue of Upton Online. Upton republishes a talk to the Dunedin Rotary Club on the topic, given by Bernard Cadogan, a student at Oxford. After praising New Zealand's democracy (one quite unusual in that, rather than attempting to circumscribe popular power in order to prevent "mob rule", it trusts the people). Cadogan goes on to argue for popular "ownership" of the constitutional debate. It's our constitution, and so we should take a lively interest in it. This is a proposition I endorese wholeheartedly.
Looking at the recent One News special on whether Prince Charles should become king of New Zealand, Cadogan concludes that the monarchists won the debate and that republicans "have to improve their game". The republican speakers "failed to give a coherent view of the Treaty in a New Zealand Republic" and "failed to define what a New Zealand Republic would really be like". This stems from - allowing monarchists to use the idea of an American-style executive presidency as a straw-man. And he's probably right. At the moment the republican movement is relatively unfocused - it knows very well what it is against - the monarchy - but not what it is for. If we want to actually make the change, we are going to have to answer that question.
For my part, I'm in favour of a Swedish-style republic which dispenses with a head-of-state entirely; this I think would fit well with our post-MMP emphasis on consensual Parliamentary politics. But I can certainly live with the "twink republic" of Keith Locke's Head of State Referenda Bill. And while I am in favour of strengthening the Bill of Rights Act to make it a greater check on Parliamentary power, we do not need to change everything all at once. And it may in fact be tactically better to try and keep the two issues seperate, so as to avoid people rejecting one because they cannot stand the other.
7 comments:
If you trust the public - the public heard the arguments for a republic and heard the arguments for nad against - and made the rational decision to axe the republic idea.
the method of asking the same question again and again until you get the answer you want always works but is only related to what you want not what anyone else wants.
Its like asking people if they want to commit suicide - if you keep asking the question eventually youll either catch the person on a depressed day or you'll depress them yourself and you'll get a yes.
Posted by Genius : 4/02/2005 05:49:00 PM
Oh really, they did? And when was the referendum on the republic issue Genius?
As for asking the same question again and again, not even the Aussies are doing this. Cynically you could point out that this is because the ARM didn't get the answer it wanted in 1999 - however, I would point out that while support for a republic may very well be greater than 50%, a majority wouldn't support the type of republic proposed. And so you're not acutally asking the same question 'again and again'.
Posted by Lewis Holden : 4/02/2005 05:55:00 PM
Genius: I don't think an opt-in 0900 poll should be taken as representative of anyone's opinion, other than those who are stupid (or rabid) enough to waste their money on it.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 4/03/2005 10:31:00 AM
No has yet presented to me any real reason why the people via representation in parliament should surrender one iota of its absolute sovereignty to unelected elites or ethnic minorities (aboriginal or otherwise).
Maori are indigenous; I have sympahy for the compensation process for the colonisation. But the treaty was then and this is now. The New Zealand of 1840 no more exists - neither does the New Zealand of 1940 for that matter. Constitutional debate regarding the treaty and limitations on parliaments unfetered sovereignty occur in a totallt surreal and elitist environment inhabited by Iwi stranded in 1840 and academic with a technocratic distain of the electorate.
It is with good reason the citizen are skeptical of the special pleadings for more power from groups that wish of palace coups to give them themselves the could never win at the ballot.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/03/2005 01:28:00 PM
Oh Im not refering to the 0900 poll. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that a majority of NZders dont want to become a republic, if that was not the case we would be a republic tomorrow and you wouldnt be talking about needing to sell the case better (afterall you dont need to win 0900 polls).
Posted by Genius : 4/03/2005 01:35:00 PM
Genius - A majority of people not supporting the change to a republic (remember supporters of the monarchy now total less than 50% also) doesn't constitute a "rational decision to axe the republic idea"; it's simply the public stating its current view on the matter.
Anon - where has anyone, or any republican for that matter, spoken of devolving sovereignty from Parliament to Maori?
I have never argued that an end to 'absolute' Parliamentary sovereinty should mean such a devolvement, and indeed I have simply argued that an end to the myth of Parliamentary sovereinty should simply mean greater protection against the very elites you decry.
Posted by Lewis Holden : 4/03/2005 02:03:00 PM
The problem with the monarchy versus republic debate is that most people really don't care. I don't care.
If New Zealand becomes a republic are we going to have a better health system? Or am I atleast going to get paid more?
If we were already a republic I'd have no problem with this, and I guess it would make more sense, but don't we have more important things to worry about at the moment?
It just seems like a lot of effort for no real gain.
Posted by Anonymous : 4/06/2005 12:47:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).