It seems to be that when the Australians consider changing their flag, or becoming a republic, then the media here decide it's something that needs to be discussed domestically. Of course, if the Australians ever did change their flag (which a lot of them claim they want to do, but they have no idea what to change it to), then the main argument against having the flag here (that it looks too much like Australia's) goes down the dunny, but that's not really what this blogspot is about.
In general, I am pretty much for the ideals of republicanism. It seems ridiculous to have a hereditary head of state in a fairly secular, egalitarian, social democracy society like the one New Zealand purports to be. BUT... there are quite a few reasons why I am against the move to a Kiwi Republic. Here they are - and I am happy for you to disagree or try to dissuade me.
1. A Kiwi Republic as a truly Independent Nation
One of the arguments for the Kiwi Republic is how it will make the country look in the eyes of others. The argument goes that being tied to the United Kingdom through the Royal family does not make New Zealand look like an independent nation, strong and confident, with our own opinions and ideals.
So, because other nations disapprove of the nuclear legislation (which they may actually be aware of), it should be changed? Because countries like Libya, Egypt and Iraq are republics and have Presidents, they are seen as respectable, responsible and democratic nations?
It's the kind of argument that annoys me in that it seems to be for the most wrong reason of all for making a fundamental change to yourself: doing it for someone else.
2. The form of the Kiwi Republic
It's easy enough to say "we want to be a republic", much like it is easy to say "we want a new flag". But the devil is in the detail with this: what will it actually look like?
The simplest way is to replace the Governor General with a President elected by Parliament. Simple, and so ultimately pointless - having an elite choosing the President is exactly the same as an elite choosing the Governor General. It would be all style over substance, and not really terribly democratic.
The truly democratically elected President would therefore be the only option that would be "worth" it. But, if a President were directly elected, what power would they have? Would the people give the President a mandate to actually do anything, besides opening parliament and wearing lots of funky robes (actually, all those would have to go with the whole republican ethos)?
I think the main thrust of the republican debate doesn't really focus on the nature of the proposed Kiwi Republic, more on the perception of it. As a detail person, that just throws me right off.
3. Presidential Candidates
A simple enough question: who would be the Kiwi Republic's President?
At the moment, the Governor General is appointed as a responsible caretaker. In this high profile position, the Governor General is pretty low key - so low key, in fact, that there can even be questions about their New Zealand-ness.
All that would have to change under any republican system. The whole point is that it would be a very high profile position. And, assuming the person in the position is democratically elected, who would assume the mantel (and baubles) of that office?
Yup, I am pretty convinced Winston Peters would be the first democratically elected President of New Zealand. Having no idea of what powers (or otherwise) the position would hold, and assuming it would be a position for a person both versed in politics and determined to keep the government honest, I could think of no candidate that would be more appealing to a lot of New Zealanders. Of course, I personally would have to migrate were this nightmarish situation ever to occur.
My own vote would go to Daniel Carter, standing in his Bendon underwear with his attractive and equally (or egalitarianally) attired bride-to-be Honor Dillon at his side. Imagine the amount of international good will this couple could generate as the President and first lady? Or, if she has more political aspirations than he, Honor could be the first Madam President and he can continue to concentrate on his underwear and associated rugby career as the First Man from the First XV?
It would be an interesting Presidential race if SBW also stepped into that competitive ring, though I would have a few doubts that he would stay in the post for long.
4. The Kiwi Republic and Maori
Now, this is an interesting one. Would the Kiwi Republic bring over exactly the same relationship between "The Crown" (that will have to be rebranded) and Maori? What place would the Treaty of Waitangi hold in the new order? Is the declaration of a Kiwi Republic the chance to incorporate, address, or remove the Treaty as a founding document of New Zealand - soon to be the People's Republic of New Zealand?
I am not even going to speculate on this one. It's such a sensitive issue that would probably just be glossed over in the rush to Republicanism, as its decided that "nothing will really change" with a President, when it's actually an incredible opportunity to really make sense of it all.
5. The Need for Change
I was lucky enough to be able to vote for the MMP system that now plagues government and causes highly unpopular coalitions. Yes, I am that old. And yes, I am glad I did so and would do so again.
But even this still rather large change to the political landscape of New Zealand has caused major problems, reconsiderations, and recriminations - not necessarily with the system, but with the people involved and with the outcomes that have eventuated.
No system is perfect, but MMP sought to provide greater representation in Parliament for representatives outside of the two main parties, so that New Zealanders did not have to vote for one of two parties in key electorates for their opinion to count. In this, it has succeeded.
What is the point of republicanism? I assume it is to address the issues in the points above, which is why I have mentioned why I doubt it will work. I suppose the real question then is what problems will becoming a republic solve? Personally, besides the whole hereditary thing, I don't see many problems with the current way things work (thanks MMP). But I could be wrong.
Verdict: I have probably written on this before, and will probably do so again. It's a subject that will stay around for a while methinks, as no change is likely in the future that I can foresee. I imagine the shift will happen one day, but not for a while yet. A dawn's early light that you can say you can see by.
6 comments:
I would like a new flag. I think ours is not as identifiable as it should be on the world stage and as we are minnows who some time punch above our weight (rugby, nuclear free stance, Shrek the sheep) we need something that will give us identity when we do. This should not be associated with the guys from over the pond. We loose enough identity to them as it is.
As a republic I am supporting the no for the time being. We are separate enough from the sovereign state to have our own identity but with enough close ties that we can still look towards it for a sense of belonging (this has nothing to do with my visa application by the way). I think we need to sort out the broken parts of the electoral process and treaty debacle before we try to stand on our own. Having a new flag could help that process.
Kia ora, I'm Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement. Here are some responses to your article:
It seems to be that when the Australians consider changing their flag, or becoming a republic, then the media here decide it's something that needs to be discussed domestically.
Sure, but not always. The most recent debate at the start of the year was around the appointment of New Zealand's next Governor-General. We had an article published in the NZ Herald and one in the Dominion Post on the issue, specifically around making the position elective (more on that later).
In general, I am pretty much for the ideals of republicanism. It seems ridiculous to have a hereditary head of state in a fairly secular, egalitarian, social democracy society like the one New Zealand purports to be.
On that most New Zealanders agree...
BUT... there are quite a few reasons why I am against the move to a Kiwi Republic.
...there's usually a but!
I am happy for you to disagree or try to dissuade me.
I shall try to do so...
1. A Kiwi Republic as a truly Independent Nation
...
It's the kind of argument that annoys me in that it seems to be for the most wrong reason of all for making a fundamental change to yourself: doing it for someone else.
This isn't a question about doing something for someone else, and certainly no-one I know has ever argued that we must change because some other country has demanded it.
Independence matters, because our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in order to represent Britain.
The Queen works to strengthen British economic and political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. Whenever "our" head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.
If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. Appointing the Queen's representative in New Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand's independence and maturity to the world.
2. The form of the Kiwi Republic
It's easy enough to say "we want to be a republic", much like it is easy to say "we want a new flag". But the devil is in the detail with this: what will it actually look like?
The only proposals so far for a New Zealand republic (under the Head of State Referenda Bill) are for either:
1. A head of state elected every 5 years by 75% of parliament, with nominations from the public;
2. A head of state directly elected using STV;
Under both scenarios the Head of State would have the same powers as the Governor-General.
...having an elite choosing the President is exactly the same as an elite choosing the Governor General.
No it's not. Currently the Prime Minister can choose whoever he or she wants as Governor-General. They simply send their nomination to the Queen, who rubber-stamps it.
Parliamentary election, or proposal (1) above, entails three-quarters of MPs agreeing on the nominee (this ensures the winner is neutral, and acceptable to all sides of the political divide - much like present Governors-General). That is far more deliberative than the status quo. There is also more public input, through public nominations of the Head of State.
It would be all style over substance, and not really terribly democratic.
There are already a number of constitutional offices elected by parliament - Prime Ministers effectively by votes of confidence/no confidence, the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General, members of the Electoral Commission.
But, if a President were directly elected, what power would they have? Would the people give the President a mandate to actually do anything, besides opening parliament and wearing lots of funky robes (actually, all those would have to go with the whole republican ethos)?
Direct election does pose this question, however as above GG's powers are already largely defined. They simply require a provision stating that they continue in a republic - so in short, they wouldn't have a mandate. Presidential elections for a non-executive head of state in Ireland tend to focus on issues of national identity, rather than politics (as is the case for parliamentary elections).
I think the main thrust of the republican debate doesn't really focus on the nature of the proposed Kiwi Republic, more on the perception of it. As a detail person, that just throws me right off.
With respect, there are lots of us more interested in the detail than the "feel-good" factor of becoming a republic.
As already mentioned, there is a clear problem with the Prime Minister being able to appoint whoever they want as GG and dismiss them at will.
3. Presidential Candidates
A simple enough question: who would be the Kiwi Republic's President?
Looking at other parliamentary systems with an elected head of state around the world, the answer is: the same sort of people who are Governor-General in New Zealand today.
At the moment, the Governor General is appointed as a responsible caretaker. In this high profile position, the Governor General is pretty low key - so low key, in fact, that there can even be questions about their New Zealand-ness.
That is a problem, albeit one largely created by the fact that the GG's office is actually part of the Prime Minister's department, a little known fact.
All that would have to change under any republican system. The whole point is that it would be a very high profile position. And, assuming the person in the position is democratically elected, who would assume the mantel (and baubles) of that office?
Again, this does depend on the electoral system used, but I personally doubt that a non-executive head of state could ever "outshine" the Prime Minister, who has responsibility for the policy on the economy, healthcare, etc.
Yup, I am pretty convinced Winston Peters would be the first democratically elected President of New Zealand. Having no idea of what powers (or otherwise) the position would hold, and assuming it would be a position for a person both versed in politics and determined to keep the government honest, I could think of no candidate that would be more appealing to a lot of New Zealanders.
Surely you jest? He doesn't rate at more than 2% for preferred PM, so I highly doubt he could get elected as president under a direct-election model; as for parliamentary election I'd say it's even less likely.
Still, your analysis makes a change from the usual "President Helen Clark!!" argument we hear, which is equally nonsensical.
4. The Kiwi Republic and Maori
Now, this is an interesting one. Would the Kiwi Republic bring over exactly the same relationship between "The Crown" (that will have to be rebranded) and Maori?
"The Crown" is shorthand for the government acting as a legal entity. It's not hard to change, you simply need a deeming provision (check out the Interpretation Act for more) saying something like "All references to 'The Crown' shall from now on be read as meaning 'The Government representing the people of New Zealand'" or something like that.
What place would the Treaty of Waitangi hold in the new order?
Well, the important bit to remember is that under the status quo, the Treaty only has a 'place' by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1985, and various other references in other Acts of Parliament.
Is the declaration of a Kiwi Republic the chance to incorporate, address, or remove the Treaty as a founding document of New Zealand - soon to be the People's Republic of New Zealand?
"People's Republic" is a term used for Communist states. As for the Treaty, the two issues aren't linked, although they are similar.
I am not even going to speculate on this one. It's such a sensitive issue that would probably just be glossed over in the rush to Republicanism, as its decided that "nothing will really change" with a President, when it's actually an incredible opportunity to really make sense of it all.
I don't think it'll be "glossed" over. I think with the upcoming Constitutional Review we're likely to see concrete steps to put together a codified constitution. Again, this is unrelated to becoming a republic but a similar issue. I doubt Maori would support a republic until this happens, so it is in a way a necessary step.
5. The Need for Change
I was lucky enough to be able to vote for the MMP system that now plagues government and causes highly unpopular coalitions. Yes, I am that old. And yes, I am glad I did so and would do so again.
But even this still rather large change to the political landscape of New Zealand has caused major problems, reconsiderations, and recriminations - not necessarily with the system, but with the people involved and with the outcomes that have eventuated.
Interestingly, the anti-MMP campaign of 1993 resembles a lot of the rhetoric used by opponents of a republic; that it will lead to economic disaster, that it will lead us to a dictatorship, that it will cost too much, that it will create instability. The more things change...
We would argue that a republic is much less of a radical change than MMP was; essentially because MMP actually changed the way governments are formed and dissolved.
No system is perfect, but MMP sought to provide greater representation in Parliament for representatives outside of the two main parties, so that New Zealanders did not have to vote for one of two parties in key electorates for their opinion to count. In this, it has succeeded.
It certainly has. It has also, I think, brought about greater checks on the power of the executive. A Prime Minister must now negotiate with other viewpoints, rather than ramming theirs through. We'll never see another Muldoon. Cabinet is now more diverse, with ministers drawn from many different parties, often of differing political stances.
What is the point of republicanism? I assume it is to address the issues in the points above, which is why I have mentioned why I doubt it will work. I suppose the real question then is what problems will becoming a republic solve?
This is the nub of the issue. For me, a New Zealand republic is about three things:
1. Independence
2. Democracy
3. Nationhood
In terms of the "problem" to be solved, it is clear that New Zealand lacks a proper constitutional check on the power of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in an executive sense. The Governor-General is not independent of the Prime Minister, they are appointed and can be dismissed by them. Electing the Governor-General, which we have suggested as a practical first step, would resolve this. It would also make the GG ever more like our head of state.
Personally, besides the whole hereditary thing, I don't see many problems with the current way things work (thanks MMP). But I could be wrong.
We're fortunate that we've muddled through without too many constitutional hiccups along the way. But the reality is that in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, they've not been so lucky. It's interesting that republicanism has more support in Canada and Australia, both countries where the Prime Minister and Governor-General have been locked into constitutional impasses in the past.
Anyway, just my thoughts, would be interested to see your responses.
wow judge...nice can of worms you opened up there!...looking forward to your next post...
Post a Comment