Glyn Davis: Republicans will rise again

The Australian
18 November 2002

It's been three years since hopes of an Australian republic were defeated at the ballot box. A decade of work by republicans disappeared in flames.

From the cinders will rise the next republican proposal. Inevitably, it will be different from the proposition put in 1999, promising more radical change to the Australian political system.
For republicans, the lessons of the lost referendum are stark. The drive to create an Australian head of state was defeated on two fronts – by monarchists opposed to any constitutional change and by populists eager for a president chosen by direct election. Only this coalition of convenience could overpower the centre.

To prevail next time – and there will be a next time – republicans need unity. With opinion polls consistently showing significant public support for the ideal of a republic, monarchists cannot prevail without allies.

In the aftermath of the 1999 referendum, Kim Beazley promoted a new vision of how the republican debate should occur next time, with a plebiscite on the issue of a republic before a referendum to choose between competing options. In such a scheme, principle is decided before detail.

The logic of the Beazley proposal suggests a different outcome from 1999. If the plebiscite is carried, electors must decide between a minimalist model, such as that offered originally by the Australian Republican Movement, and a direct-election model. The available opinion poll data suggests the popular election alternative would prevail by a wide margin.

Thus those who opposed a minimalist change in 1999 would find themselves facing more sweeping constitutional alteration. The victory of 1999 might seem in retrospect a misjudgment – a chance for moderate, incremental reform squandered, only to see more hard-edged constitutional change take its place.

But what if the next vote is a repeat of 1999 – a single referendum requiring republicans to choose only one model and so risk more fatal splintering?

The next republican phoenix must embody the virtues of republicanism, with the office of head of state open to any citizen. Yet it also needs agreement between minimalists and maximalists, between those who favour parliamentary selection of a president and those bent upon popular election. If disunity in politics is death, as John Howard so accurately observed, republicans cannot afford to be divided again.

Australia is not the first country to face this conundrum of how to preserve a symbolic head of state while allowing popular choice. This is a problem already solved in other republics. To avoid a Melbourne Cup field of candidates or politicisation of the office, most direct-election republics impose some threshold test on who can stand for president. To find a place on the ballot paper, candidates must demonstrate significant public support – through petitions, selection by a nominating process or by holding an existing public office.

Consider the outstanding stability and popular success of Ireland's constitution. Candidates for president of Ireland must be nominated by no less than 20 members of parliament or at least four county boroughs. In Australian terms, this could mean requiring nomination by, say, one-quarter of all federal MPs or senators, or one-quarter of state and territory legislators. This would preserve a direct election but from among candidates likely to command substantial community support.

The Irish example suggests there is a viable meeting point between the republican tribes. This would mean a move towards direct election, but with eligibility rules to preserve the character of the presidency. Eligibility rules are the compromise, the consensus that allows a united front.

When agreement is achieved, republicans will press again for constitutional reform. This may arise from a groundswell of popular support for an Australian head of state as in the 1990s, from dissatisfaction with the present constitutional monarchy or from the ambition of a future prime minister to make a mark on history.

If unity is the first lesson of 1999, the second is the importance of reflection before any political campaign. A potentially winning coalition must be formed before the battle begins. Once polling day is in sight, rationality goes overboard.

It is too painful to dwell on the insanities of the 1999 referendum – the absurdity of politicians telling us not to trust politicians, the spoiling claims that a parliamentary republic would somehow be unfair to women or migrants.

How long will it take until a new generation demands its say on an Australian republic? More than eight years elapsed between the formation of the ARM in July 1991 and the November 1999 referendum. Finding the point of connection between republicans might require as long again. Even then, a strong coalition is not sufficient. Only the federal parliament can initiate a referendum, so support from the national leader is also essential.

Once every 100 years, flames would engulf the legendary phoenix and its nest, leaving behind only an egg. But from defeat would be born a new life, from despair a new beginning. In the embers of 1999, patiently but with determination, waits the next republican push.

Glyn Davis is vice-chancellor of Griffith University in Brisbane. Griffith University, in conjunction with The Australian and the Australian Republican Movement, hosted the Australian Constitutional Futures conference in Brisbane at the weekend to restart and broaden the debate about the republic and the constitutional framework we need for the 21st century.

© The Australian