We are on our own: the global and historical context of an Australian Republic

By John Warhurst
16-7 November 2002


Introduction

This paper addresses the topic of the global and historical context of an Australian republic from the perspective of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM). The ARM is committed to one central objective, the creation of an Australian Republic with an Australian Head of State. For the ARM the many issues to be discussed include the method of appointment and dismissal, the powers of the Head of State and the processes by which these questions might be considered by the Australian community. But beyond the Head of State question the ARM has no official position on the other issues that republicans individually might wish to consider at this conference.

The ARM welcomes broad discussion of constitutional change because it recognises that a climate generally sympathetic to such changes is necessary for the success of any proposal. In particular, the ARM is interested in the relationship between the republic issue as it sees it and other proposals such as Reconciliation, Bills of Rights and Citizen Initiated Referenda, to name just three. The ARM also welcomes discussion of strategies to achieve constitutional change because whatever the proposal the barriers to change are often similar.

The global and historical context of an Australian republic can be addressed in a number of ways. It can provide ideas gleaned from international and Australian experience about under what general circumstances Australia might become a republic. It might help us consider whether there or not there is a global or historical momentum for a republic. It can provide examples of the specific processes that Australia might adopt in order to reach that goal. Finally it can offer consideration of different types of republican models from which Australia might choose. Of these four issues, while each has some importance, the question of global or historical momentum is probably the most significant. This paper concludes that such momentum exists only in the most general sense. Australians in 2002 are on their own in matters of constitutional development.

Historical Context

The history of republicanism in Australia may be interpreted in many ways. For some it is the history of that small minority committed to an Australian Head of State. For others it is the history of the much larger movement for Australian constitutional autonomy and cultural identity. In the end, for our purposes in 2002, the labels probably don't matter too much.

Mark McKenna, in the major history of Australian republicanism, concludes that there has been a "diverse range of phenomena trading under one label" (McKenna 1996: 4). If republicanism is interpreted most broadly then republicans have been those concerned with all movements for political and constitutional change. Those movements are usually understood as involving a number of steps. Following white settlement in 1788 the first major step occurred when responsible government was obtained by the colonies in the 1850s. The second major step was Federation in 1901. The twentieth century saw a number of further formal steps, such as the Statute of Westminster (1931-1942) and the Australia Acts (1986). There were also a number of other steps, such as the appointment of Australians as Governor-General, the discontinuance of the award of imperial honours, the abolition of appeals from Australian courts to the Privy Council and the choice of a new national anthem.

Each of these steps changed the nature of Australian republicanism. During the 19th century republicanism was concerned largely with questions such as self-government for the colonies, balanced government between parliament and the executive, and the rights of British subjects and citizens. Only in the 20th century, after Federation in 1901, did the focus slowly become Australianising political institutions. And the modern notion of Australian republicanism meaning an Australian Head of State, on which the ARM is built, is a quite recent phenomenon. The concern with the Head of State question accompanied the development of a specifically Australian nationalism, as distinct from a pride in being British, during the 20th century. According to McKenna only in the 1990s, after Paul Keating became prime minister, did the republic question become "a mainstream political issue" (McKenna 1996: 265).

During the 20th century republicanism evolved from meaning the quest for Australian national autonomy to focus on the replacement of the British monarch and Governor-General with an Australian Head of State. A number of themes stood out among the steps that were undertaken (Warhurst 1993). Significantly, many of the changes took place because of the dynamics of the British Empire and Commonwealth. In several cases Australia acquiesced in general changes that the Australian government had itself not been seeking. It had been other dominions such as Canada that had taken the lead in the 1920s on matters such as full self-government for the dominions or the separation of the position of Queen's representative from that of representative of the British government. Within Australia it was generally Labor governments that took the initiative, though even they were cautious and did not adopt a republican platform until the 1980s. There was always strenuous opposition to change from the conservative parties. And often that opposition was linked to arguments that the changes were leading along a 'slippery slope' towards a republic.

It became quite common for it to be assumed that the change from constitutional monarchy to a republic was inevitable. Even in the 1890s, McKenna (1996:10) reports, many of the participants in the Federation
debates "believed that an Australian republic was inevitable". The same remained true a century later in the early 1990s, even before the republic had achieved majority support. For instance, Bob Hawke told the Australasian Political Studies Association in October 1992 that: "I have said many times, and over many years, that Australia will inevitably and appropriately become a republic" (Hawke 1993). While George Winterton (1986: ix) prefaced his path-breaking book on Monarchy to Republic: Australian Republican Government with the comment that: "This work commences from the premise that an Australian republic is inevitable. Not imminent, admittedly, but inevitable nonetheless". This common view has
been detrimental to the cause of a republic unfortunately because of the
implication that the movement was irresistible. It has allowed luke-warm
supporters, much less opponents, to claim that urgency about change, or
even creating an organisation to achieve change, is unnecessary.



Steps towards an Australian Republic

The slogan of the ARM is Our Republic: The Next Step". There is little
disagreement about the previous steps whatever one thinks about the meaning
of republicanism but there are differences in emphasis. Let us consider
the views of three major political historians. First, John Hirst, historian
and former ARM convener in Victoria, argues (1994:102):

Our political evolution has gone in step with our cultural evolution. We
became self-governing in local affairs in the 1850s; we joined six colonies
together to make a nation within the empire in 1901; we took full
responsibility for foreign affairs and defence from the 1930s; we regularly
appointed Australia-born Governors-General from the 1960s; we adopted our
own national anthem in the 1970s; we abolished appeals to the Privy Council
in the 1980s. Only one step in this evolution remains. Republicanism played
only a small part in all the previous steps. To make this last step we must
become republicans but our task is the culmination of the nation-building
which our ancestors began. There is one last public office which we must
take out of British hands and put into Australian.

Secondly, the political scientist, Brian Galligan, has long argued that the
head of state issue is a relatively minor matter. His central argument is
"that Australia's constitutional system is essentially that of a federal
republic rather than a parliamentary monarchy" (1995:12). The system is
republican, according to Galligan (1995:14), "because the constitutions,
for both the Commonwealth and the States, are the instruments of the
Australian people who have supreme authority". He points to the role of the
Australian people in drafting the Constitution and in the endorsement of
the draft constitution by the people voting at referendums (1995:26). He
also attaches significance to the 'Australianising' of the offices of the
offices of Governor-General and State Governor (1995:21). He concludes:
"Removing the language of monarchy from constitutions and changing the
titles of the offices of head of state is but the final step in regularising the Australian federal republic, which has only been thinly disguised by formal monarchic language and symbols" (1995:24).

Thirdly, Mark McKenna has an even broader definition of republican history.
He certainly records the story of the movement towards 'independence' punctuated by the development of positions such as that of Governor-General (1996:214). But his approach identifies both a conservative and a Labor-inspired tradition. The former refers, like Galligan, to 'the tradition of the disguised republic' (1996: 264) inherent in Australian liberalism and mainstream political development. It is not anti-monarchical or anti-British but is concerned with the evolution among Australians of predominant allegiance to Australia. The latter refers, like Hirst, to the nationalist tradition that judges historical political developments as movements away from Britain and towards an independent national identity.

Against this background of political development the task of the ARM is made easier by the fact that political development, republican or not, has proceeded so steadily and so peacefully that its benefits are hard for anyone to deny. However, the task is also made harder, paradoxically, by all the previous steps because many who might otherwise be supporters are comfortable with the status quo and will say that little of consequence remains to be done. These lethargic republicans are hard to energise because they see an Australian Head of State as a low priority.

The task of anyone concerned with Australia's constitutional future is also not made easier by Australia's record of constitutional reform in the 20th century. The record of constitutional reform under s. 128 of the Constitution, which does not need to be documented here but which is largely a record of failure, is not encouraging, whatever the reasons for the failure of individual referendums (Galligan 1995: 110-132).

But it should be noted that since the federation referenda in the 1890s none of the relevant political developments have depended on popular consent. Some, like the appointment of Australians as Governor-General, have involved just the Prime Minister in Cabinet and the monarch. Some, like the introduction of Australian honours and the parallel discontinuance of Imperial honours, have involved initiatives by individual Australian governments, beginning with the Whitlam government, and eventually the express preference of the monarch. Some, like the passing of the Statute of Westminster, have involved the British and Australian parliaments (and other British Commonwealth parliaments). Some, like the Australia Acts, have involved those parliaments as well as the Australian state parliaments. Some, like the Queen's new Royal Styles and Titles in 1952/53, have involved agreement by the heads of Imperial or Commonwealth governments at conferences. Only the introduction of Advance Australia Fair as the national anthem instead of God Save the Queen has involved even an expression of popular opinion through a non-binding plebiscite. Clearly matters of process are important to constitutional futures and need to be addressed carefully.

The British Empire and Commonwealth Context

Australian political and constitutional development has taken place within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Australia remains a member of this Commonwealth. The Report of the Republic Advisory Committee provides some discussion of Commonwealth developments. By 1993 only 15 members of the Commonwealth had maintained the British constitutional monarchy. 28 had become republics, while seven had their own indigenous monarchies
(Commonwealth of Australia 1993: 42).

Australia was one of a small group of white British dominions within that empire, the others including Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland. This group shares many aspects of Australia's experience, but none of them offers a path that Australia can follow towards an Australian Head of State without radical regime change.

The Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Ireland have achieved a republic essentially through revolutionary rather than reformist means. South Africa's break with its monarchical past came in 1961 because of the deep divisions within the Commonwealth over its apartheid policy. White South Africans had voted narrowly for a republic in 1960 but the context was extreme domestic conflict over race policies. The Irish, who finally severed links with the monarchy in 1949 when the Republic of Ireland was created, initially broke away from British colonial rule following the 1916 Easter Rising (Duffy 1993). Australia's situation is very different to both these cases.

Canada and New Zealand's experience is more similar to that of Australia. But they are still further away than Australia from addressing this question despite some senior political figures such as successive New Zealand Prime Ministers, including Helen Clark, and recently the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, John Manley, declaring themselves to be republicans. Interestingly Canada changed its flag in the 1960s and repatriated its constitution and inserted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. But it has shown very little interest in the republican question (Smith 1999; see also Cardinal and Headon 2002). This Canadian disinterest is a necessary caution for Australian republicans.

So we are on our own. The absence of a clear example that marks out the peaceful reformist path that Australian republicans wish to take makes the task a more solitary one for Australia. It has not always been the case that Australia was on its own. During the first half of the 20th century Australia often lagged behind Canada and other dominions in asserting independence within the Empire. We were dragged along by the others demanding change within the network of Empire. We also learnt later from Canada on matters such as a national system of honours.

On constitutional issues other than the republic we are also not on our own currently because on issues like a Bill of Rights Australia stands out from just about all the other Commonwealth countries, including Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. But on the republic we will not be dragged along by a general momentum generated by others. If we were it might make our task a little easier because examples of peaceful transition could be pointed to whenever it was alleged by our opponents (as it was in 1999) that there were no proven examples of what Australian republicans wished to achieve. On the other hand relying on international momentum for constitutional change might be a doubtful quantity anyway. International passage of bills of rights does not appear to have greatly assisted the cause of an Australian bill of rights.


The Global Context

The broader global context of an Australian republic is the international experience of those other nations with republican constitutions. Australia can look to them for some practical republican models, but few of these nations offer any guidance as to the process of limited constitutional change. Rather their experience, like that of Ireland and South Africa, has been of larger regime change often in the process of decolonisation or domestic upheaval.

The most obvious model is the United States of America. The American republic followed the American War of Independence of 1776. According to McKenna it has served since to Australians as "both a warning and as a model for change" (McKenna 1996: 7). While the USA was a model for federation it has never been a model for a republican Australia to any but a small minority of republicans.

Another model of long standing is the French republic, born in the French Revolution of 1789. This example has always been unattractive to Australians because of its connection with the violent overthrow of the 'ancien regime'.

A possible model is the English or British model of 'republicanism' under the monarchy. Those who see Australia as already a disguised republic would see Britain in a similar light, though under heavier disguise because of the place of the monarchy in British culture and society. But republicanism in Britain, short of serious moves towards removing the monarch, is largely irrelevant to the fate of the republic in Australia.

The Irish Revolution that produced the Republic of Ireland came a little later. Given the popular misconception that Australian republicanism is nothing but an Irish-Australian plot it is surprising that Ireland's experience is not given more attention than it is. The explanation probably lies in sensitivity in the first half of the 20th century especially towards the sectarian divide between Catholics and Protestants in Australia. There would have been no value in promoting an Irish solution.

The international record of republics was used during the 1999 referendum
campaign by NO campaigners as an argument against change and the same will happen in any future campaign. But such arguments are not only inconclusive but also often deliberately misleading. There are many working examples of successful republican constitutions, among the leading G7 nations for instance, just as there are examples of equivalent constitutional monarchies. To imply that the record of republics is such that that is reason enough for Australia not to become one is irrelevant.


Conclusion

The global and historical context offers Australian republicanism a mixed bag of lessons. The record of political and constitutional development within Australia is encouraging. Great changes have been achieved, particularly at Federation. They have been achieved in a non-threatening manner and Australians have been satisfied with the outcomes. There has been very little serious looking backwards apart from the occasional querying of federation or the grumbling about the words of the new national anthem. Changes that did not involve using the referendum process have come about much more easily. Most proposals for constitutional change introduced under s 128 of the Constitution have been rejected by the Australian people as was the 1999 Republic referendum.

Within the Empire and Commonwealth there are plenty of examples of modern republics emerging, including many nations that have remained members of the Commonwealth. Some demonstrate that republican government, once achieved, is good government, but they took this step in circumstances of upheaval quite different from those we face in Australia. Others have not yet debated the republic issue with any seriousness. So the experience of our Commonwealth 'cousins', including Britain, is of limited use to us.

The wider international context again offers plenty of examples of republics, including most prominently France and the USA, but also other G7 members Germany and Italy. They offer institutional models of how to be a republic but little in the way of the best process to get there.

We are on our own. Australians should not be dismayed that we are on our own distinctive journey. We are able to pick and choose from the examples of others while carving out our own way. That is something that we have always done as citizens of the world but controlling our own destiny. Former Labor leader, Kim Beazley, captured this sentiment in a 1999 Australia Day address. Australians now recognise "that really we are all on our own, make our own way, live by our cleverness and wits, and accept responsibility for our own national life" (quoted in Ward 2001: 2). That strikes me as an apt summation of the situation for Australian republicans at the beginning of the third millennium.

References

Cardinal, L and Headon D (eds) 2002 Shaping Nations: Constitutionalism
and Society in Australia and Canada, University of Ottawa Press

Commonwealth of Australia 1993 The Report of the Republic Advisory
Committee, An Australian Republic: The Options, Volume 1, The Report

Duffy, J 1993 "Overseas Studies: Ireland" in Commonwealth of
Australia, The Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, An Australian
Republic: The Options, Volume 2, The Appendices

Galligan, B 1995 A Federal Republic: Australia's Constitutional
System of Government, Cambridge University Press

Hawke, B 1993 "Foreword", in S. Lawson and G. Maddox (eds)
"Australia's Republican Question", Australian Journal of Political Science,
28, Special Issue

Hirst, J 1994 A Republican Manifesto, Oxford University Press

McKenna, M 1996 The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in
Australia 1788-1996, Cambridge University Press

Smith, D E 1999 The Republican Option in Canada, Past and Present,
University of Toronto Press

Ward, S 2001 Australia and the British Embrace: The Demise of the
Imperial Ideal, Melbourne University Press

Warhurst, J 1993 "Nationalism and Republicanism in Australia: The
Evolution of Institutions, Citizenship and Symbols", in S. Lawson and G.
Maddox (eds) "Australia's Republican Question", Australian Journal of
Political Science, 28, Special Issue

Winterton, G 1986 Monarchy to Republic: Australian Republican
Government, Oxford University Press