Apologies to anyone who may have so much free time that they've been visiting this weblog to see whether I have added any new entries. As it happens, I've been at school and, although the school server allows access to the main page, when one tries to sign in it decides to block access. I shall see if it can be un-blocked by way of a polite e-mail or somesuch.
Nevertheless, that - for the time being - is by the by and, to quote from the really rather arrogant and conceited writings of Pliny the Younger (III 14, in fact...), "quid praeterea novi?"
Well, there's the unfortunate demise of Sir Edmund Hillary (KG, ONZ, KBE), one of the greatest New Zealanders thus far. I read his autobiography "View from the Summit" last November and, whilst I don't have a copy to hand to quote directly from, I distinctly remember being impressed by his amazement at being made a knight (on both occasions) and at the Garter ceremony itself. Worth remembering.
As to the unpleasant little controversy which seems to have overshadowed the death of Mr. Hillary, all I can write is that I hope that the next new Knight of the Garter (or, indeed, Knight of the Thistle) will be a New Zealander. Also, I cannot try and hide behind a cloak and pretend that there was not some element of disappointment in the fact that a member of the Royal Family did not attend the State Funeral of Mr. Hillary; I am a pragmatic monarchist of sorts and would have liked to have seen one of the Firm there. Nevertheless, the memorial service in Windsor for Mr. Hillary will be a fitting tribute too, whilst - despite claims of Anand Satyanand doing Her Majesty's "donkey work" - I am reminded that that is what he is for, anyway. Moreover, I believe - as above - that another New Zealander being made a KG would be brilliant.
However, some of you may have noticed a distincly Latinate theme to elements of this weblog entry. cur, rogetis? Well, L.J. Holden provided me with one of the best laughs I've had in a long while; he provided me with two of the best laughs in a long while, in fact. You see, in two consecutive posts writing about men who have died (and - make no mistake - I am sorry for his loss of his grandfather and it's not something I'd wish upon anyone or revel in as a misfortune befalling someone else, before you ask), L.J. Holden has written, all very neat and set out, "requiem in pace". Oh dear.
Another "wonderful" L.J. Holden moment is in an entry titled "Obvious Answers", wherein he responds to a weblog post by "No Right Turn" (an alliance of convenience, no doubt, although I myself am force to agree with No Right Turn on not being sad to see Peter "You've Been Tangoed!" Hain leave office in disgrace):
No Right Turn: "If our absentee monarchy won't perform even their ceremonial functions for us, why do we still keep them around?"
L.J. Holden: "The obvious answer is, of course, yes."
Oh dear - again.
Third is the revelation that, despite the excellent publicity received in these last few days alone, the membership of tRMANZ is between 5 and 100 (although I note that he's referring to a post bythat suggests that tRMANZ's membership is as many people as there are words in its name, which words numbering six, which number being between five and one hundred, although I suspect that the number of members of tRMANZ is at least ever so slightly higher than that).
I have the honour to remain Her Majesty’s most humble and obedient servant, no matter what the fairweather monarchists and embittered republicans hooting and hollering on the discussion sites of New Zealand's newspapers say.
Exit CM stage right, pursued by hordes of like-minded pedants who have found errors in his own entries...
God Save the Queen!
Saturday, 26 January 2008
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Feliz cumpleaños, Su Majestad
Today, the 5th of January (although I'm aware that L.J. Holden will already be celeberating the epiphany as I write), marks the 70th Birthday of HM King Juan Carlos I, King of Spain.
I am reminded that there is hope for any republic; Spain became a republic in April 1931, complete with a new constitution approved that December. In 1936, the Spanish Civil War broke out and Franco, backed by Hitler and Mussolini, came to power. Franco presided over an authoritarian state for the rest of his life but, aware of his own mortality, he agreed that Juan Carlos should become his successor. Juan Carlos was not, in fact, the principal pretender to the throne of Spain; his father (son of Alphonse XIII the last King of Spain prior to the establishment of a republic in 1931) was, but Franco, afraid that Juan would be too liberal and would get rid of the Falangist state, chose Juan Carlos instead.
However, far from being anti-democratic, HM King Juan Carlos was at the forefront of Spain's transition to monarchy, and has done Spain excellent service since November 22, 1975.
¡Feliz cumpleaños, Su Majestad!
¡Largo reinado se puede!
God Save the Queen!
I am reminded that there is hope for any republic; Spain became a republic in April 1931, complete with a new constitution approved that December. In 1936, the Spanish Civil War broke out and Franco, backed by Hitler and Mussolini, came to power. Franco presided over an authoritarian state for the rest of his life but, aware of his own mortality, he agreed that Juan Carlos should become his successor. Juan Carlos was not, in fact, the principal pretender to the throne of Spain; his father (son of Alphonse XIII the last King of Spain prior to the establishment of a republic in 1931) was, but Franco, afraid that Juan would be too liberal and would get rid of the Falangist state, chose Juan Carlos instead.
However, far from being anti-democratic, HM King Juan Carlos was at the forefront of Spain's transition to monarchy, and has done Spain excellent service since November 22, 1975.
¡Feliz cumpleaños, Su Majestad!
¡Largo reinado se puede!
God Save the Queen!
President who?
A telling little example of why no one will notice who the president is or what he does. I mentioned in a previous post Peter Tatchell's sycophantic interview of the flabby British Labour MP Andrew MacKinlay; both are recognised supporters of a republic. During the interview, Mackinlay starts talking about good presidents:
"There are some very successul presidents around the world [...] you don't have to look far. I think that the current president of the Irish Republic Mary McAleese and her predecessor, another woman, have carried out their office with great dignity, have been great ambassadors for their country and I thinky they're quite a good model of success for that kind of institution."
Nowt wrong there, you may think. But look again at "her predecessor, another woman". MacKinlay doesn't appear to know who the previous president of the Republic of Ireland was.
The person MacKinlay is referring to is, in actual fact, Mary Robinson. Now, MacKinlay is a member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and has been since 1997, just overlapping with Robinson's tenure as president of the Republic of Ireland. Worse still, MacKinlay is also an associate member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, so for him not to know is pretty scandalous. And yet, a republic with a president is supposed to be good for a country and supposed to help raise its profile.
Now, I'm a Briton, and, whilst I can name you Queen Beatrix, King Carl XVI Gustaf, King Juan Carlos, I Queen Margerethe II, King Albert II, King Harald V and suchlike (not to mention HM King Constantine II, ex-King of the Hellenes), I can't name as many presidents - Nicholas Sarkozy is perhaps the only one that springs to mind. I can name a few heads of government (Prodi, Merkel) but I had to look up the presidents of Italy and Germany just to see. I can name more African presidents, to tell the truth (Kibaki, Mugabe, Mbeki, Yar'Adua, Kufuor, Mubarak, Al-Bashir, &c.) than European ones.
Now, of course, that's just a constitutional monarchist, in't it, finding out about the various kingdoms of Europe. And yet I can't exactly say that I'm filled with certainty that a president wouldn't just fade into the background of European/Australasian/North American/Caribbean politics compared with a monarch, particularly when Shaun Williamson's fatter & elder lookalike doesn't know.
God Save the Queen!
"There are some very successul presidents around the world [...] you don't have to look far. I think that the current president of the Irish Republic Mary McAleese and her predecessor, another woman, have carried out their office with great dignity, have been great ambassadors for their country and I thinky they're quite a good model of success for that kind of institution."
Nowt wrong there, you may think. But look again at "her predecessor, another woman". MacKinlay doesn't appear to know who the previous president of the Republic of Ireland was.
The person MacKinlay is referring to is, in actual fact, Mary Robinson. Now, MacKinlay is a member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and has been since 1997, just overlapping with Robinson's tenure as president of the Republic of Ireland. Worse still, MacKinlay is also an associate member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, so for him not to know is pretty scandalous. And yet, a republic with a president is supposed to be good for a country and supposed to help raise its profile.
Now, I'm a Briton, and, whilst I can name you Queen Beatrix, King Carl XVI Gustaf, King Juan Carlos, I Queen Margerethe II, King Albert II, King Harald V and suchlike (not to mention HM King Constantine II, ex-King of the Hellenes), I can't name as many presidents - Nicholas Sarkozy is perhaps the only one that springs to mind. I can name a few heads of government (Prodi, Merkel) but I had to look up the presidents of Italy and Germany just to see. I can name more African presidents, to tell the truth (Kibaki, Mugabe, Mbeki, Yar'Adua, Kufuor, Mubarak, Al-Bashir, &c.) than European ones.
Now, of course, that's just a constitutional monarchist, in't it, finding out about the various kingdoms of Europe. And yet I can't exactly say that I'm filled with certainty that a president wouldn't just fade into the background of European/Australasian/North American/Caribbean politics compared with a monarch, particularly when Shaun Williamson's fatter & elder lookalike doesn't know.
God Save the Queen!
Saturday, 5 January 2008
CM - (Re)public(an) enemy no. 128,000,000?
It seems that I have acquired some sort of notoriety within five days of starting this weblog. A gentleman by the name of L. J. Holden, Chair* of tRMANZ and author of the interesting republican weblog http://www.holdenrepublic.org.nz/ (he's plugged this weblog there, so I may as well return the favour), has noted this weblog's entry (pardon the pun) into the world and in doing so has commented upon section (iii) of "A terminological inexactitude" (see here for the full post: http://commonwealthmonarchist.blogspot.com/2008/01/terminological-inexactitude.html). He agrees with me that New Zealand is independent and points out (to my shame, since, given my attitude on terminological inexactitudes, I must now partake of the humblest of pies - probably "farmhouse" chicken pie, or somesuch, although I suspect there's humbler - pork pie, p'raps?) that tRMANZ publicly acknowledges this on its website.
Moreover, I still do not agree with this whole "signalling" thing. Mr. Holden's weblog argues that a republic would be a way of "signalling" independence, even though he concedes that New Zealand is independent already. I've written it before and I'll write it again - eh? Why not just attempt to persuade New Zealanders to put massive banners on the sides of NZ-registered aircraft and shipping proclaiming "NEW ZEALAND: YES, WE ARE INDEPENDENT!" or have Anand Satyanand write "New Zealand - an independent country, before you ask" at the beginning and end of every sentence? I don't honestly believe that, of the many people who are interested in or care about New Zealand, or even have a vague knowledge of it, the vast majority still think that New Zealand is some kind of British colony. What "signalling" would it bring? A few statements by republican and monarchist groups worldwide, and a section in the editorial comment page of the (British, right-wing) Daily Telegraph (the same paper, before you ask, that revealed that Kevin Rudd was a "staunch" republican). Would people in general notice? Nope. RMANZ suggests that changes would be minimal, supporting Keith Locke's "minimalist" (its words, not mine) Heads of State (Referenda) Bill and suggesting that there would be few changes to the way in which New Zealand is governed (http://www.republic.org.nz/node/93, if you really want to see). If so, why would anyone care? No one would notice New Zealand not waving but drowning. Whilst I'll acknowledge that this will mean people will still come to New Zealand, the flag will still stay the same, life will go on (at least until people realise they're living in a politician's state... ;)), what it also means is that the whole exercise would provide so little change as to ensure that no one would be bothered to notice New Zealand "signalling". The signals are there, but neither the Down Home nor the Down Distant semaphores are "off" for tRAMNZ, and I believe the Civil Engineers are coming soon to take possession of the line so as to disconnect all signalling, point rodding, signal boxes and the like.**
God Save the Queen!
* Interesting footnote - Mr. Holden was the last "President" of tRMANZ, but the post was renamed "Chair" shortly after. I can't help but think that it smacks of the republicans who didn't want "republic" or "president" in the 1999 Australian referendum question. God Save the Queen! CM.
**Another interesting footnote - Mr. Holden lists "railways" as being amongst his interests. Whilst I don't like the idea of a republican sharing the same name as the man who designed the (British) Great Eastern Railway's S69 4-6-0s (http://www.lner.info/locos/B/b12.shtml), maybe he and I should have a chat some time. I'm sure railways and republics would be good fun. God Save the Queen! CM
Moreover, I still do not agree with this whole "signalling" thing. Mr. Holden's weblog argues that a republic would be a way of "signalling" independence, even though he concedes that New Zealand is independent already. I've written it before and I'll write it again - eh? Why not just attempt to persuade New Zealanders to put massive banners on the sides of NZ-registered aircraft and shipping proclaiming "NEW ZEALAND: YES, WE ARE INDEPENDENT!" or have Anand Satyanand write "New Zealand - an independent country, before you ask" at the beginning and end of every sentence? I don't honestly believe that, of the many people who are interested in or care about New Zealand, or even have a vague knowledge of it, the vast majority still think that New Zealand is some kind of British colony. What "signalling" would it bring? A few statements by republican and monarchist groups worldwide, and a section in the editorial comment page of the (British, right-wing) Daily Telegraph (the same paper, before you ask, that revealed that Kevin Rudd was a "staunch" republican). Would people in general notice? Nope. RMANZ suggests that changes would be minimal, supporting Keith Locke's "minimalist" (its words, not mine) Heads of State (Referenda) Bill and suggesting that there would be few changes to the way in which New Zealand is governed (http://www.republic.org.nz/node/93, if you really want to see). If so, why would anyone care? No one would notice New Zealand not waving but drowning. Whilst I'll acknowledge that this will mean people will still come to New Zealand, the flag will still stay the same, life will go on (at least until people realise they're living in a politician's state... ;)), what it also means is that the whole exercise would provide so little change as to ensure that no one would be bothered to notice New Zealand "signalling". The signals are there, but neither the Down Home nor the Down Distant semaphores are "off" for tRAMNZ, and I believe the Civil Engineers are coming soon to take possession of the line so as to disconnect all signalling, point rodding, signal boxes and the like.**
God Save the Queen!
* Interesting footnote - Mr. Holden was the last "President" of tRMANZ, but the post was renamed "Chair" shortly after. I can't help but think that it smacks of the republicans who didn't want "republic" or "president" in the 1999 Australian referendum question. God Save the Queen! CM.
**Another interesting footnote - Mr. Holden lists "railways" as being amongst his interests. Whilst I don't like the idea of a republican sharing the same name as the man who designed the (British) Great Eastern Railway's S69 4-6-0s (http://www.lner.info/locos/B/b12.shtml), maybe he and I should have a chat some time. I'm sure railways and republics would be good fun. God Save the Queen! CM
Republican hypocrisy (volume 1)
Whilst - I'll admit to it - browsing the "Republic" website (Republic being the UK member of the odious Common Cause/Common Cretins movement), I noticed a link to "talking with Tatchell". Now, for those of you who do not know about Peter Tatchell, he's an Australian-born (but now British subject) gay rights campaigner who has been involved with groups such as OutRage! and who has also been known for attempting to perform a citizen's arrest on the Zimbabwean despot (and president, of which more later) Robert Mugabe. Tatchell has an internet television show on the British internet political channel "18 Doughty Street". In this particular edition, Tatchell talks to (British) Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, who, like Tatchell, is a Republic supporter. I won't go into details of the whole 25 minutes or so of sycophantic questioning but one particular bit stands out. This is about four minutes into the interview:
TATCHELL: "It does seem to me that the Royal Family is surrounded by an awful lot of secrecy and lack of transparency, which we wouldn't have if we had an elected Head of State."
MACKINLAY: "Absolutely."
Nowt wrong with that, you may think. However, curious as to this Barry-off-Eastenders-lookalike's parliamentary career, I looked him up on http://www.theyworkforyou.com, a website useful for dishing the dirt on both loved and hated British Parliamentarians. Parliament has been well known for vociferously resisting any attempts to make it more accountable and open, preferring instead to waffle on about autonomy, self-rule etc. etc. It is with some indignation that I note that MacKinlay is one of those Parliamentarians who have never voted in favour of greater transparency and accountability for Parliament. On every single occasion MacKinlay has been conveniently absent - a useful tactic employed by pretty much every MP for avoiding controversial debates such as those on transparency.
I then looked up the other MPs listed on the Republic website (and Diane Abbot, who, whilst not listed by Republic, claims to be a "staunch republican"), just to see whether MacKinlay was a one-off. I found that only three MPs who supported a republic could claim to be in favour of a transparent Head of State without being hypocrites (Glenda Jackson, Jeremy Corbyn and Norman Baker, the latter being the only republican anywhere whom I admire). Of the remaining seventeen MPs who I know to be republicans, four (Stephen Pound, Roger Godsiff, Jim McGovern & Brian Iddon) voted against greater transparency. The remaining fourteen, cowards that they are, abstained from Parliament on every vote concerning transparency.
Republicans should either want greater transparency from Head of State and Parliament, or no transparency at all (in which case, why are they arguing so vehemently about the need for a fully transparent Head of State?). These sorts of double standards from politicians are another reason to be doubtful of the republican cause.
Now, to Mugabe. Tatchell may believe that the monarchy is wrong but let's not forget what sort of Head of State Robert Mugabe is - a president. That's right, an "electable", "accountable", "transparent" Head of State. Mugabe's rule started with good intentions. Elected on a wave of poular sentiment in March 1980, he became Zimbabwe's first Prime Minister when independence from the U.K. was achieved on April 18. At first, Mugabe was under a ceremonial president, Canaan Banana. However, in 1987, the post of Prime Minister was abolished and Banana was replaced as president by Mugabe, who was now an executive president. This was done with consummate ease and done via the Zimbabwean legislature. Mugabe made other changes to the constitution settled upon in the Lancaster House Agreement (to which he was a signatory), again with the support of Parliament. The president didn't stop Mugabe. Canaan didn't even stop Mugabe's move from a ceremonial presidency to an executive one. Zimbabwe was only suspended from the Commonwealth in 2002, 15 years after Mugabe became an executive president.
Don't tell me it couldn't happen in a Commonwealth nation, whatever you do.
God Save the Queen!
TATCHELL: "It does seem to me that the Royal Family is surrounded by an awful lot of secrecy and lack of transparency, which we wouldn't have if we had an elected Head of State."
MACKINLAY: "Absolutely."
Nowt wrong with that, you may think. However, curious as to this Barry-off-Eastenders-lookalike's parliamentary career, I looked him up on http://www.theyworkforyou.com, a website useful for dishing the dirt on both loved and hated British Parliamentarians. Parliament has been well known for vociferously resisting any attempts to make it more accountable and open, preferring instead to waffle on about autonomy, self-rule etc. etc. It is with some indignation that I note that MacKinlay is one of those Parliamentarians who have never voted in favour of greater transparency and accountability for Parliament. On every single occasion MacKinlay has been conveniently absent - a useful tactic employed by pretty much every MP for avoiding controversial debates such as those on transparency.
I then looked up the other MPs listed on the Republic website (and Diane Abbot, who, whilst not listed by Republic, claims to be a "staunch republican"), just to see whether MacKinlay was a one-off. I found that only three MPs who supported a republic could claim to be in favour of a transparent Head of State without being hypocrites (Glenda Jackson, Jeremy Corbyn and Norman Baker, the latter being the only republican anywhere whom I admire). Of the remaining seventeen MPs who I know to be republicans, four (Stephen Pound, Roger Godsiff, Jim McGovern & Brian Iddon) voted against greater transparency. The remaining fourteen, cowards that they are, abstained from Parliament on every vote concerning transparency.
Republicans should either want greater transparency from Head of State and Parliament, or no transparency at all (in which case, why are they arguing so vehemently about the need for a fully transparent Head of State?). These sorts of double standards from politicians are another reason to be doubtful of the republican cause.
Now, to Mugabe. Tatchell may believe that the monarchy is wrong but let's not forget what sort of Head of State Robert Mugabe is - a president. That's right, an "electable", "accountable", "transparent" Head of State. Mugabe's rule started with good intentions. Elected on a wave of poular sentiment in March 1980, he became Zimbabwe's first Prime Minister when independence from the U.K. was achieved on April 18. At first, Mugabe was under a ceremonial president, Canaan Banana. However, in 1987, the post of Prime Minister was abolished and Banana was replaced as president by Mugabe, who was now an executive president. This was done with consummate ease and done via the Zimbabwean legislature. Mugabe made other changes to the constitution settled upon in the Lancaster House Agreement (to which he was a signatory), again with the support of Parliament. The president didn't stop Mugabe. Canaan didn't even stop Mugabe's move from a ceremonial presidency to an executive one. Zimbabwe was only suspended from the Commonwealth in 2002, 15 years after Mugabe became an executive president.
Don't tell me it couldn't happen in a Commonwealth nation, whatever you do.
God Save the Queen!
Friday, 4 January 2008
A terminological inexactitude!
No wonder republican support is confined to the media, outspoken MPs/Senators and the odd opinion poll. Each and every Common Cause site is full of terminological inexactitudes.
(i)
Take this speech by Ted O'Brien when the "new" ARM (new? What was it offering? A dictatorship?) was launched nigh on four years ago, shortly before joining the remainder of ARM's republican convoy fleet, on the ocean floor of public opinion and memory, torpedoed by Australian common sense (pardon the extended metaphor):
"Try and picture this ….
The year: 2015 … the time: late April, a cool early evening … the moment: ANZAC Day, the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli. It's Stadium Australia … the main event … centre stage for the nation's ANZAC commemorations … and YOU - you are there! The stadium: a sea of green with sprinkles of gold … you: a green beanie, gold scarf, trackie top, blue jeans and boots … you stand there shoulder tight with thousands of your fellow Australians … you hear the echo of Advance Australia Fair ... see the hoisting of the Aussie flag [Which flag? All these references to "green and gold" are disturbing, to say the least, re: the Australian flag's future. CM.]… you feel the pride in the memory of the ANZAC legend. A respectful silence falls on the crowd … centre stage: a podium … the Master of Ceremonies speaks … “My fellow Australians” he says, “it is only appropriate that, on this most sacrosanct of national days, our Head of State addresses the nation. Please welcome his Royal Highness, King Charles the III”."
Now, look again at those last two sentences. See anything wrong? You bet. Assuming that the Prince of Wales were King in 2015 (remember that Her Majesty the Queen would only be 89, which, given that HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother lived to be over 100, isn't out of the question), ARM have got two things wrong:
1. The High Court of Australia has ruled that HM the Queen of Australia is Sovereign, with the Governor-General as Head of State, whilst Sections 2 & 61 of the Australian Constitution help emphasise that constitutional powers, whilst vested in HM the Queen, are exercised by the Governor-General. Hence, unlike, say, Canada (where the Governor General wasn't theoretically permitted to exercise the Crown's powers until Letters Patent of 1947, and where HM the Queen and her father, the late King George VI, have signed into law several bills whilst present), HM the Queen has never issued Royal Assent to a Bill or otherwise carried out those powers of the Crown that the Governor-General usually exercises whilst in Australia.
2. Under the Royal Titles & Styles Act of 1953, the reigning monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and NEVER "His Royal Highness" (note that, in any case, the "His" has a capital, unlike O'Brien's use of "his").
Moreover - in a general point - I hardly think that the jeans and beanie hats booze-up O'Brien suggests as being the sort of celebration ideal for an Australian republic is a fitting way to honour the memory of the ANZAC War Dead, do you? I'm sure the troops who went off to fight for King and Country would hardly want such an undignified commemoration.
(ii) Republic, the UK member of Common Cause (Common Cretins, if you ask me), in its "FAQ" section under "Aren't republicans simply anarchists?"
"Anarchy (the absence of any authority at all) and Monarchy (the belief that one single family has the exclusive right to authority) each seem as daft as the other to us."
Fair enough, you may think, but look again. Monarchy IS NOT "the belief that one single family has the exclusive right to authority". Monarchy comes from two Greek words, monos and archos (apologies, Blogspot doesn't want to accept Greek script). The former means "single, sole, alone, one" or somesuch, the latter means "ruler" (the verb is archo, I rule). Monarchy is not "a belief"; my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary defines "monarchy" as "(State under) monarchical government".
Monarchy does not mean that "one family has the exclusive right to authority", either. Take, for example, the Vatican; His Holiness the Pope wields absolute power, and he wields it for life. He is the "sole ruler" of the Vatican City and as such can be considered a monarch. However, Was His Holiness Pope John Paul II the father of the present Pope, Benedict XVI? Was he a close family relative? No. Any priest can, in theory, become the "monarch" of the Vatican.
Don't forget that, if we take the word at its root meaning, a republic is no different if the Head of State is constituted as being a single person. That single person is the lone ruler. As such a republic could be considered a fixed-term, elective monarchy. But Republic don't want you to understand the meaning of monarchy. They want to fob you off with "republic=good" and "monarchy=bad".
(iii) The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand has this on their website:
"signalling our independence and maturity to the world;"
Eh? New Zealand is mature; the constitutional monarchy system has been in place in New Zealand since 1907 with no fallings-out or silly acts one would expect of an immature constitutional system. This is to say nothing of the fact that the constitutional monarchy from which that of New Zealand is derived (i.e. the Westminster system and the British model of constitutional monarchy) has been in use without problems since 1660/88 (depending upon one's view). As for independence, well, New Zealand has been entirely independent since the ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1947, whilst all remaining vestiges of foreign intervention impeding upon New Zealand sovereignty were removed with the Constitution Act 1986. If that's not independence, I don't know quite what tRAMNZ are referring to.
This selfsame organisation commits another grotesque blunder further down the same page. I quote:
"Instead, a British citizen is reserved for that role."
Her Majesty the Queen is not a British citizen. She does not have a passport nor a nationality in the regular sense. Her Majesty is a Barbadian, Jamaican, Australian, British, Canadian and all her Realms at the same time. The Queen most emphatically is not a British citizen. Remember that passports are issued by the government in her name and it is this name that grants the bearer the right to travel etc. etc.
'
One crime of which all the Common Cause (Cretins? CM) movements - save the UK's Republic - are guilty is spouting such nonsense as "We want an Australian Head of State", "We want our own Head of State" etc. etc. Now, regardless of the constitutional arguments, here's a rather inane but somehow humorous one:
1. "Canadian" (and likewise "Australian", "New Zealander") means "pertaining to Canada" (as my Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary suggests).
2. Therefore, "Canadian Head of State" = "Head of State of Canada"
3. Her Majesty the Queen is the Head of State of Canada
4. Therefore, there is already a Canadian Head of State! :D :D
And that's to say nothing of the whole Australian Governor-General vs. Queen Head of State debate!
What does this tell us about republican movements, then? Well, quite frankly, would you trust a movement that doesn't even know its enemy well enough to get the terminology right? Would you trust an organisation that can't be bothered to learn the facts about the monarchy as an organisation that can provide a suitable alternative? I, for one, do not.
One final point worth considering is the proof in the pudding that, at heart, British republicans - for one - are monarchists at heart. Republic's registered address as a limited company is on a dingy industrial estate in South London (go to http://maps.live.com and search for the address given below with the addition of the postcode SW19 if you want to see it). The address?
60 Windsor Avenue.
Why am I not surprised?
God Save the Queen!
(i)
Take this speech by Ted O'Brien when the "new" ARM (new? What was it offering? A dictatorship?) was launched nigh on four years ago, shortly before joining the remainder of ARM's republican convoy fleet, on the ocean floor of public opinion and memory, torpedoed by Australian common sense (pardon the extended metaphor):
"Try and picture this ….
The year: 2015 … the time: late April, a cool early evening … the moment: ANZAC Day, the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli. It's Stadium Australia … the main event … centre stage for the nation's ANZAC commemorations … and YOU - you are there! The stadium: a sea of green with sprinkles of gold … you: a green beanie, gold scarf, trackie top, blue jeans and boots … you stand there shoulder tight with thousands of your fellow Australians … you hear the echo of Advance Australia Fair ... see the hoisting of the Aussie flag [Which flag? All these references to "green and gold" are disturbing, to say the least, re: the Australian flag's future. CM.]… you feel the pride in the memory of the ANZAC legend. A respectful silence falls on the crowd … centre stage: a podium … the Master of Ceremonies speaks … “My fellow Australians” he says, “it is only appropriate that, on this most sacrosanct of national days, our Head of State addresses the nation. Please welcome his Royal Highness, King Charles the III”."
Now, look again at those last two sentences. See anything wrong? You bet. Assuming that the Prince of Wales were King in 2015 (remember that Her Majesty the Queen would only be 89, which, given that HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother lived to be over 100, isn't out of the question), ARM have got two things wrong:
1. The High Court of Australia has ruled that HM the Queen of Australia is Sovereign, with the Governor-General as Head of State, whilst Sections 2 & 61 of the Australian Constitution help emphasise that constitutional powers, whilst vested in HM the Queen, are exercised by the Governor-General. Hence, unlike, say, Canada (where the Governor General wasn't theoretically permitted to exercise the Crown's powers until Letters Patent of 1947, and where HM the Queen and her father, the late King George VI, have signed into law several bills whilst present), HM the Queen has never issued Royal Assent to a Bill or otherwise carried out those powers of the Crown that the Governor-General usually exercises whilst in Australia.
2. Under the Royal Titles & Styles Act of 1953, the reigning monarch is "His/Her Majesty" and NEVER "His Royal Highness" (note that, in any case, the "His" has a capital, unlike O'Brien's use of "his").
Moreover - in a general point - I hardly think that the jeans and beanie hats booze-up O'Brien suggests as being the sort of celebration ideal for an Australian republic is a fitting way to honour the memory of the ANZAC War Dead, do you? I'm sure the troops who went off to fight for King and Country would hardly want such an undignified commemoration.
(ii) Republic, the UK member of Common Cause (Common Cretins, if you ask me), in its "FAQ" section under "Aren't republicans simply anarchists?"
"Anarchy (the absence of any authority at all) and Monarchy (the belief that one single family has the exclusive right to authority) each seem as daft as the other to us."
Fair enough, you may think, but look again. Monarchy IS NOT "the belief that one single family has the exclusive right to authority". Monarchy comes from two Greek words, monos and archos (apologies, Blogspot doesn't want to accept Greek script). The former means "single, sole, alone, one" or somesuch, the latter means "ruler" (the verb is archo, I rule). Monarchy is not "a belief"; my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary defines "monarchy" as "(State under) monarchical government".
Monarchy does not mean that "one family has the exclusive right to authority", either. Take, for example, the Vatican; His Holiness the Pope wields absolute power, and he wields it for life. He is the "sole ruler" of the Vatican City and as such can be considered a monarch. However, Was His Holiness Pope John Paul II the father of the present Pope, Benedict XVI? Was he a close family relative? No. Any priest can, in theory, become the "monarch" of the Vatican.
Don't forget that, if we take the word at its root meaning, a republic is no different if the Head of State is constituted as being a single person. That single person is the lone ruler. As such a republic could be considered a fixed-term, elective monarchy. But Republic don't want you to understand the meaning of monarchy. They want to fob you off with "republic=good" and "monarchy=bad".
(iii) The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand has this on their website:
"signalling our independence and maturity to the world;"
Eh? New Zealand is mature; the constitutional monarchy system has been in place in New Zealand since 1907 with no fallings-out or silly acts one would expect of an immature constitutional system. This is to say nothing of the fact that the constitutional monarchy from which that of New Zealand is derived (i.e. the Westminster system and the British model of constitutional monarchy) has been in use without problems since 1660/88 (depending upon one's view). As for independence, well, New Zealand has been entirely independent since the ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1947, whilst all remaining vestiges of foreign intervention impeding upon New Zealand sovereignty were removed with the Constitution Act 1986. If that's not independence, I don't know quite what tRAMNZ are referring to.
This selfsame organisation commits another grotesque blunder further down the same page. I quote:
"Instead, a British citizen is reserved for that role."
Her Majesty the Queen is not a British citizen. She does not have a passport nor a nationality in the regular sense. Her Majesty is a Barbadian, Jamaican, Australian, British, Canadian and all her Realms at the same time. The Queen most emphatically is not a British citizen. Remember that passports are issued by the government in her name and it is this name that grants the bearer the right to travel etc. etc.
'
One crime of which all the Common Cause (Cretins? CM) movements - save the UK's Republic - are guilty is spouting such nonsense as "We want an Australian Head of State", "We want our own Head of State" etc. etc. Now, regardless of the constitutional arguments, here's a rather inane but somehow humorous one:
1. "Canadian" (and likewise "Australian", "New Zealander") means "pertaining to Canada" (as my Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary suggests).
2. Therefore, "Canadian Head of State" = "Head of State of Canada"
3. Her Majesty the Queen is the Head of State of Canada
4. Therefore, there is already a Canadian Head of State! :D :D
And that's to say nothing of the whole Australian Governor-General vs. Queen Head of State debate!
What does this tell us about republican movements, then? Well, quite frankly, would you trust a movement that doesn't even know its enemy well enough to get the terminology right? Would you trust an organisation that can't be bothered to learn the facts about the monarchy as an organisation that can provide a suitable alternative? I, for one, do not.
One final point worth considering is the proof in the pudding that, at heart, British republicans - for one - are monarchists at heart. Republic's registered address as a limited company is on a dingy industrial estate in South London (go to http://maps.live.com and search for the address given below with the addition of the postcode SW19 if you want to see it). The address?
60 Windsor Avenue.
Why am I not surprised?
God Save the Queen!
A little bit of New Year's fun
Sorry, I just cannot resist it.
The ARM's Queensland branch, on its "About Us" page (http://qld.republic.org.au/about_us.html), has the following statement:
"And if you have some feedback for us, or a better idea for choosing our Head of State, please let us know!"
It then invites you to click on "let us know" to compose an e-mail to qld@republic.org.au
Well, ARM, I have a better idea for choosing an Australian Head of State. Australians roundly rejected a republic (accusations of monarchist bias and rigging thereof I shall deal with at a later date) in 1999. It's called the Act of Settlement 1701. It isn't perfect (discrimination against Catholics, amongst whose numbers I count myself, being the major discrepancy) but it's a darned sight better than any of ARM-QLD's six preferred models (six preferred models? You must be joking! Republicans are so fragmented, it seems, that they're hardly able to select a single model for fear of alienating a large amount of their core base).
Send an e-mail to the above address, explaining your support for the status quo as "a better idea for choosing our Head of State". Go on, I dare you. Even if you're not Australian, tell 'em what you think. Bet you won't!
God Save the Queen!
P.S. If any of you do actually send off to ARM-QLD and receive a response, please post it in the "Comments" section. I'd love to see what the republicans say!
The ARM's Queensland branch, on its "About Us" page (http://qld.republic.org.au/about_us.html), has the following statement:
"And if you have some feedback for us, or a better idea for choosing our Head of State, please let us know!"
It then invites you to click on "let us know" to compose an e-mail to qld@republic.org.au
Well, ARM, I have a better idea for choosing an Australian Head of State. Australians roundly rejected a republic (accusations of monarchist bias and rigging thereof I shall deal with at a later date) in 1999. It's called the Act of Settlement 1701. It isn't perfect (discrimination against Catholics, amongst whose numbers I count myself, being the major discrepancy) but it's a darned sight better than any of ARM-QLD's six preferred models (six preferred models? You must be joking! Republicans are so fragmented, it seems, that they're hardly able to select a single model for fear of alienating a large amount of their core base).
Send an e-mail to the above address, explaining your support for the status quo as "a better idea for choosing our Head of State". Go on, I dare you. Even if you're not Australian, tell 'em what you think. Bet you won't!
God Save the Queen!
P.S. If any of you do actually send off to ARM-QLD and receive a response, please post it in the "Comments" section. I'd love to see what the republicans say!
I'm a "staunch" monarchist, if you really must know...
In my last weblog entry, I touched fleetingly upon the nature of republican PR and spin. Look at either the CCR or ARM websites, for example. Both have pictures of happy, ethnically-diverse people; ARM has a group of young people playing a game of tug of war (tugging at the fabric of the Australian Crown, Constitution and the Australian way of life in general?), whilst CCR has a mixture of old and young, again all looking happy, again all ethnically diverse. This is all part of their "(oil?) slick" image designed to persuade you (yes, YOU) that they're not just a bunch of predominantly white, middle-aged people getting back at the fact that their own political ambitions have been thwarted.
Now, that - obviously - is not the case for every republican under the sun, but, seeing as how republicans would wish to generalise monarchists as elderly (or at least very close to retirement) white Protestant British loyalists who'd rather see Canada become British North America again or Australia become separate British colonies once more, it's only fair. And look, for example, at the Gold Coast (in Queensland) branch of ARM:
http://www.republicgoldcoast.com/page/page/780535.htm
Very "young", "trendy", "modern" etc. So much for a republic being the embodiment of Australian youth and Aussie kids becoming Heads of State.
Republican PR schemes - like presidents - are transient. Who in Australia remembers the "new" ARM launched nigh on four years ago? Who remembers the "mate for a head of state" campaign? Like former presidents, they've sunk without trace.
Now is where I finally get to the point of this article. In attempt to reduce said transience, republicans like to be known by terms that make them seem less transient, less power hungry. One of those is "staunch". "Staunch" was used to describe Kevin Rudd in the near-cultural-cringe report via the London Daily Telegraph that Australia could become a republic last September. "Staunch republican" described Cate Blanchett in several reports that the actress was going to narrate the series Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work for Australian consumption. Diane Abbot (a British MP) describes herself as a staunch republican in an article on her website (http://www.dianeabbott.org.uk/index.php?article=168 Note that traditionally anti-private school Abbot talks about her own sense of being "trapped" by press reporters who had come to investigate her behaviour - how sad, couldn't happen to a nicer person, etc. etc. - and, in sending her son to an institution that she would rather do away with, so long as her son had finished his education, presumably, exemplifies the sort of hypocrisy, weaselling, et al. I've come to expect from republican politicians).
Well, I'm now going to describe myself as a "staunch" monarchist. Staunch is a perfectly good adjective, and it's high time someone claimed it back for civilisation. I'm sick of "staunch" republicans, who in reality would probably describe themselves as monarchists if party policies (or, indeed, a suggestion that describing oneself as a monarchist would be the best way to boost poll ratings; see the fact that it's electoral suicide in much of the United States of America to describe oneself as an atheist as proof).
The monarchy isn't transient; the monarchy doesn't need to sustain itself by way of flashy websites, nice little pictures of smiling children bathing in golden light. The monarchy remains, evolving but unchanged, through the centuries. Tell me about a president who can do that!
God Save the Queen!
Now, that - obviously - is not the case for every republican under the sun, but, seeing as how republicans would wish to generalise monarchists as elderly (or at least very close to retirement) white Protestant British loyalists who'd rather see Canada become British North America again or Australia become separate British colonies once more, it's only fair. And look, for example, at the Gold Coast (in Queensland) branch of ARM:
http://www.republicgoldcoast.com/page/page/780535.htm
Very "young", "trendy", "modern" etc. So much for a republic being the embodiment of Australian youth and Aussie kids becoming Heads of State.
Republican PR schemes - like presidents - are transient. Who in Australia remembers the "new" ARM launched nigh on four years ago? Who remembers the "mate for a head of state" campaign? Like former presidents, they've sunk without trace.
Now is where I finally get to the point of this article. In attempt to reduce said transience, republicans like to be known by terms that make them seem less transient, less power hungry. One of those is "staunch". "Staunch" was used to describe Kevin Rudd in the near-cultural-cringe report via the London Daily Telegraph that Australia could become a republic last September. "Staunch republican" described Cate Blanchett in several reports that the actress was going to narrate the series Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work for Australian consumption. Diane Abbot (a British MP) describes herself as a staunch republican in an article on her website (http://www.dianeabbott.org.uk/index.php?article=168 Note that traditionally anti-private school Abbot talks about her own sense of being "trapped" by press reporters who had come to investigate her behaviour - how sad, couldn't happen to a nicer person, etc. etc. - and, in sending her son to an institution that she would rather do away with, so long as her son had finished his education, presumably, exemplifies the sort of hypocrisy, weaselling, et al. I've come to expect from republican politicians).
Well, I'm now going to describe myself as a "staunch" monarchist. Staunch is a perfectly good adjective, and it's high time someone claimed it back for civilisation. I'm sick of "staunch" republicans, who in reality would probably describe themselves as monarchists if party policies (or, indeed, a suggestion that describing oneself as a monarchist would be the best way to boost poll ratings; see the fact that it's electoral suicide in much of the United States of America to describe oneself as an atheist as proof).
The monarchy isn't transient; the monarchy doesn't need to sustain itself by way of flashy websites, nice little pictures of smiling children bathing in golden light. The monarchy remains, evolving but unchanged, through the centuries. Tell me about a president who can do that!
God Save the Queen!
Thursday, 3 January 2008
A hollow victory for the republic...
So, it seems that the Nepalese Government has voted to abolish its 240-year-old monarchy (albeit provisionally). Regardless of the merits of this (and, quite frankly, the words "Federal Democratic Republic" bring to mind communist/socialist/nationalist/fascist - i.e. extreme - autocracies with dictators for presidents), it is worth noting that, of the four equally odious "Common Cause" movements, not one mentions it in a press release. Even New Zealand republican Lewis Holden only gives it a cursory mention with the single "tag" of "monarchies".
You'd have thought they would have been jumping for joy; casting off the shackles of the monarchy, having already done away with an established faith and having had a long struggle to rid Nepal of its king. You'd have thought that there would be press releases exhorting their own nations to republican glory and congratulating the Nepalese for this historic step), or at the very least citing King Gyanendra's abolition of the Nepalese House of Representatives and his emergency rule as a tyrannical example of the have the monarchy can wreak on any nation. Instead, what do we get? Not a word about it. And yet this is actually something which - unlike the Common Cause movements - is not stagnating, is not relying on press coverage to sustain it, is not (as one commentator described ARM) "on life support". This is actually a vote which - if the constitutional convention scheduled for April 2008 succeeds - will spell the end for the monarchy of Nepal.
So, why don't they seize this PR coup? My guess is that it represents the nastier side of republicanism, the side away from the smiling families and diverse groups of people (look on the ARM and CCR front pages to find idiotic actors and actresses posing as happy families to make republicanism seem rosy). This republic, let's not forget, was brought about in part by Maoist guerillas and the bloody Nepalese Civil War (in which 12,000 are estimated to have died). Not only is this unacceptable (after all, the UK-based movement, Republic, is frightfully desperate not to be seen as left-wing, even posting an "Are you left-wing?" FAQ on its website) to the republicans, but I suspect that they fear that such support would backfire upon them, given aforesaid Nepalese Civil War. This is to say nothing of the fact that this vote probably doesn't appear to be democratic enough for these highly undemocratic (not that they'd want you to think that) republicans; only a plebiscite or referendum, no matter how rigged or biased (see the example of Owen Arthur and the Barbados Labour Party, who plan a referendum based upon the question "Do you want a Barbadian as head of state?" or something similar, which would mean nothing if passed since Her Majesty the Queen is Barbadian) it may be.
It's a hollow crown (oh, sorry, presidential sash, or whatever symbol the republicans want) that a republican state wears.
And it's a hollow victory in Nepal for them, too.
God Save The Queen!
You'd have thought they would have been jumping for joy; casting off the shackles of the monarchy, having already done away with an established faith and having had a long struggle to rid Nepal of its king. You'd have thought that there would be press releases exhorting their own nations to republican glory and congratulating the Nepalese for this historic step), or at the very least citing King Gyanendra's abolition of the Nepalese House of Representatives and his emergency rule as a tyrannical example of the have the monarchy can wreak on any nation. Instead, what do we get? Not a word about it. And yet this is actually something which - unlike the Common Cause movements - is not stagnating, is not relying on press coverage to sustain it, is not (as one commentator described ARM) "on life support". This is actually a vote which - if the constitutional convention scheduled for April 2008 succeeds - will spell the end for the monarchy of Nepal.
So, why don't they seize this PR coup? My guess is that it represents the nastier side of republicanism, the side away from the smiling families and diverse groups of people (look on the ARM and CCR front pages to find idiotic actors and actresses posing as happy families to make republicanism seem rosy). This republic, let's not forget, was brought about in part by Maoist guerillas and the bloody Nepalese Civil War (in which 12,000 are estimated to have died). Not only is this unacceptable (after all, the UK-based movement, Republic, is frightfully desperate not to be seen as left-wing, even posting an "Are you left-wing?" FAQ on its website) to the republicans, but I suspect that they fear that such support would backfire upon them, given aforesaid Nepalese Civil War. This is to say nothing of the fact that this vote probably doesn't appear to be democratic enough for these highly undemocratic (not that they'd want you to think that) republicans; only a plebiscite or referendum, no matter how rigged or biased (see the example of Owen Arthur and the Barbados Labour Party, who plan a referendum based upon the question "Do you want a Barbadian as head of state?" or something similar, which would mean nothing if passed since Her Majesty the Queen is Barbadian) it may be.
It's a hollow crown (oh, sorry, presidential sash, or whatever symbol the republicans want) that a republican state wears.
And it's a hollow victory in Nepal for them, too.
God Save The Queen!
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Hungry, hungry politicos?
As I write, two Commonwealth countries - Pakistan and Kenya - are in turmoil. In the former, the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has led to recriminations and protests. Some fear that, with the damage done to polling stations and ballot boxes in Bhutto's home state (amongst other places), it will not be possible to hold an election. In Kenya, there are grave doubts about the legitimacy of the re-election of Mwai Kibaki, the incumbent Kenyan president; rioting across the country, leading to many deaths, has already begun. One friend of mine commented that the tribal differences were beginning to look like the very first makings of a Rwanda-esque tribe versus tribe genocide.
Sad, isn't it, that human beings should act like this towards each other?
And yet, in a way, both events are somehow predictable. Both are the result of systems of government in which there is not a Sovereign/Governor-General presiding over the state and ensuring that the sorts of riots based around political parties do not happen. Both countries were Commonwealth Realms on independence - Pakistan from 1947-56, Kenya from 1963-64. I'll level with you. I don't make any claims that either country has drifted hopelessly since becoming a republic, or even since becoming independent. Nor do I pretend that Benazir Bhutto's assassination absolutely 100% would not have happened (Pakistan's first PM was assassinated in 1951).
What I do claim is that both countries would be more stable under a Crown. Take Pakistan. In March 1956, the monarchy (considered by Pakistani politicians to be an interim feature, part of Pakistan's constitution, which was effectively the Government of India Act 1935) was abolished and a republic proclaimed. Two years later, a military coup overthrew the president. Military rule remained in place until 1971, but was again in force from 1978-88 and, under Gen. Musharraf, from 2001 until the present. That means that, out of 52 years as a republic, 30 - over half - have been under military rule. The longest-serving civilian president, F. I. Chaudhry of the PPP - Bhutto's party - lasted only five years in the office befored being replaced by military rule.
The problem is that presidents are far more transient than Sovereigns. A Sovereign who commands respect, such as Her Majesty the Queen, is far harder to depose by a coup or - as the Australians have shown - by a fair referendum (I wonder why republicans in Commonwealth countries, when citing "fair" referenda on republics, never mention, say, Hendrik Verwoerd's 1960 referendum on a republic in South Africa, or Kwame Nkrumah's referendum in South Africa?). Only one country - Fiji - managed a military coup to depose the Queen. Even then, Her Majesty remains Great Paramount Chief of Fiji (and thus theoretically above the president), whilst there is a chance she may return as Sovereign (or at least I hope so!).
As for Kenya, the presidents since 1964 have been not so much transient as nigh-on dictators. Jomo Kenyatta was Kenya's first PM before becoming president in a shift away from the Westminster system to an executive presidency. Kenyatta remained leader of the Kenyan African National Union and president of Kenya until his death in August 1978. He was replaced by Daniel arap Moi, his Vice-president. President arap Moi remained in power until 2002, when he was succeeded by Mwai Kibaki, the incumbent and allegedly fraudulent (in terms of the election just gone) president. 3 presidents in 43 years? Are you sure that's right?
Two other examples are the aforementioned Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika/Tanzania. Nkrumah was Ghana's first Prime Minister but in 1960, following a populist referendum, he became executive president. He used Government funds for lavish personal projects (e.g. the Black Star, a yacht-cum-rather-pathetic-frigate for the use of the President). Eventually he was deposed but not before Yarrow Shipbuilders had started work on his yacht (which was later, at the insistence of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, taken on by the Royal Navy as HMS Mermaid but sold in the latr 1970s to Malaysia as the KD Hang Tuah. It's now a training ship). Like Nkrumah, Nyerere was Tanganyika's first Prime Minister. He then became Tanganyika's first president in 1962 and remained president of what became Tanzania until 1985; since then there have been three more presidents, all of whom have been of the CCM, Tanzania's primary political party and, for a time until 1992, its only legal political party. Nyerere was originally a member of the TANU (same as KANU in meaning!) but became a member of the CCM when TANU and another party, ASP, merged in 1977 to form CCM. 1 political party in 47 years, 4 presidents. A fair and just system for all?
What's striking about these examples is that the men who led the struggles for independence in their respective countries all appear to be power-mad. All are elected, in a wave of populist sentiment, prime ministers of their respective countries. All, within a few years of independence, turn their countries into republics. Instead of remaining as Prime Ministers, they instead become executive presidents, whereupon the problems really start to happen.
And don't let the spiel of, say, Republic (who want a ceremonial president in the UK, may it never happen) fool you with its talk of Heads of Government, impeachment, etc. etc. When Nigeria abandoned the monarchy in 1963, it started out with a ceremonial president (the last Governor-General, as it happens). In 1966 the military deposed the president and instituted executive rule. When civilian rule returned in 1979, a US-inspired system was installed. South Africa, at the height of apartheid, changed the role of president from ceremonial to executive. Uganda's presidents were once ceremonial but are now executive (previous presidents include Milton Obote and Idi Amin, neither of them particularly nice to their own people). Furthermore, even if a written constitution (or, in the case of Commonwealth Realms other than the UK and New Zealand, re-written constitution) were laid down at the time of a republic's founding, who's to say that a ceremonial president with connections to the ruling political party and PM (a former MP or Senator, or a party donor - who amongst any UK readers doesn't know about the cash-for-honours scandal that has permeated deep into the heart of both the Government and the Opposition), even if they are no longer a party member or an MP or somesuch, couldn't wangle a Parliamentary vote in favour of amending the constitution to create an executive presidency? After all, I daresay many of the politicians in Canberra, Wellington, Ottawa, Kingston, Bridgetown, London, etc. etc. would love to be styled as president, and are in the same vein as the power-hungry men behind Ghana, Tanganyika, Kenya and Fiji (amongst others) becoming republics. I doubt that a republic could have adequate safeguards; even the United States has problems with its political system, despite supposedly being one of the greatest countries with one of the greatest political systems on earth.
Republics? Hardly things of the people, if you ask me.
God Save the Queen!
Sad, isn't it, that human beings should act like this towards each other?
And yet, in a way, both events are somehow predictable. Both are the result of systems of government in which there is not a Sovereign/Governor-General presiding over the state and ensuring that the sorts of riots based around political parties do not happen. Both countries were Commonwealth Realms on independence - Pakistan from 1947-56, Kenya from 1963-64. I'll level with you. I don't make any claims that either country has drifted hopelessly since becoming a republic, or even since becoming independent. Nor do I pretend that Benazir Bhutto's assassination absolutely 100% would not have happened (Pakistan's first PM was assassinated in 1951).
What I do claim is that both countries would be more stable under a Crown. Take Pakistan. In March 1956, the monarchy (considered by Pakistani politicians to be an interim feature, part of Pakistan's constitution, which was effectively the Government of India Act 1935) was abolished and a republic proclaimed. Two years later, a military coup overthrew the president. Military rule remained in place until 1971, but was again in force from 1978-88 and, under Gen. Musharraf, from 2001 until the present. That means that, out of 52 years as a republic, 30 - over half - have been under military rule. The longest-serving civilian president, F. I. Chaudhry of the PPP - Bhutto's party - lasted only five years in the office befored being replaced by military rule.
The problem is that presidents are far more transient than Sovereigns. A Sovereign who commands respect, such as Her Majesty the Queen, is far harder to depose by a coup or - as the Australians have shown - by a fair referendum (I wonder why republicans in Commonwealth countries, when citing "fair" referenda on republics, never mention, say, Hendrik Verwoerd's 1960 referendum on a republic in South Africa, or Kwame Nkrumah's referendum in South Africa?). Only one country - Fiji - managed a military coup to depose the Queen. Even then, Her Majesty remains Great Paramount Chief of Fiji (and thus theoretically above the president), whilst there is a chance she may return as Sovereign (or at least I hope so!).
As for Kenya, the presidents since 1964 have been not so much transient as nigh-on dictators. Jomo Kenyatta was Kenya's first PM before becoming president in a shift away from the Westminster system to an executive presidency. Kenyatta remained leader of the Kenyan African National Union and president of Kenya until his death in August 1978. He was replaced by Daniel arap Moi, his Vice-president. President arap Moi remained in power until 2002, when he was succeeded by Mwai Kibaki, the incumbent and allegedly fraudulent (in terms of the election just gone) president. 3 presidents in 43 years? Are you sure that's right?
Two other examples are the aforementioned Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika/Tanzania. Nkrumah was Ghana's first Prime Minister but in 1960, following a populist referendum, he became executive president. He used Government funds for lavish personal projects (e.g. the Black Star, a yacht-cum-rather-pathetic-frigate for the use of the President). Eventually he was deposed but not before Yarrow Shipbuilders had started work on his yacht (which was later, at the insistence of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, taken on by the Royal Navy as HMS Mermaid but sold in the latr 1970s to Malaysia as the KD Hang Tuah. It's now a training ship). Like Nkrumah, Nyerere was Tanganyika's first Prime Minister. He then became Tanganyika's first president in 1962 and remained president of what became Tanzania until 1985; since then there have been three more presidents, all of whom have been of the CCM, Tanzania's primary political party and, for a time until 1992, its only legal political party. Nyerere was originally a member of the TANU (same as KANU in meaning!) but became a member of the CCM when TANU and another party, ASP, merged in 1977 to form CCM. 1 political party in 47 years, 4 presidents. A fair and just system for all?
What's striking about these examples is that the men who led the struggles for independence in their respective countries all appear to be power-mad. All are elected, in a wave of populist sentiment, prime ministers of their respective countries. All, within a few years of independence, turn their countries into republics. Instead of remaining as Prime Ministers, they instead become executive presidents, whereupon the problems really start to happen.
And don't let the spiel of, say, Republic (who want a ceremonial president in the UK, may it never happen) fool you with its talk of Heads of Government, impeachment, etc. etc. When Nigeria abandoned the monarchy in 1963, it started out with a ceremonial president (the last Governor-General, as it happens). In 1966 the military deposed the president and instituted executive rule. When civilian rule returned in 1979, a US-inspired system was installed. South Africa, at the height of apartheid, changed the role of president from ceremonial to executive. Uganda's presidents were once ceremonial but are now executive (previous presidents include Milton Obote and Idi Amin, neither of them particularly nice to their own people). Furthermore, even if a written constitution (or, in the case of Commonwealth Realms other than the UK and New Zealand, re-written constitution) were laid down at the time of a republic's founding, who's to say that a ceremonial president with connections to the ruling political party and PM (a former MP or Senator, or a party donor - who amongst any UK readers doesn't know about the cash-for-honours scandal that has permeated deep into the heart of both the Government and the Opposition), even if they are no longer a party member or an MP or somesuch, couldn't wangle a Parliamentary vote in favour of amending the constitution to create an executive presidency? After all, I daresay many of the politicians in Canberra, Wellington, Ottawa, Kingston, Bridgetown, London, etc. etc. would love to be styled as president, and are in the same vein as the power-hungry men behind Ghana, Tanganyika, Kenya and Fiji (amongst others) becoming republics. I doubt that a republic could have adequate safeguards; even the United States has problems with its political system, despite supposedly being one of the greatest countries with one of the greatest political systems on earth.
Republics? Hardly things of the people, if you ask me.
God Save the Queen!
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind?
Well, the New Year is upon us (indeed, as I write, Australia, New Zealand, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea have welcomed in another year under their respective Crowns). Many of you - monarchists and republicans alike - will be singing Auld Lang Syne at booze-ups across the globe, perhaps so drunk as to be able barely to slur the words of it.
From a monarchist's perspective, it is worth reflecting on the particular words from the poem I've quoted in the title of this weblog entry,
The monarchy is, for the Commonwealth Realms, the "old acquaintance" of yore. Thanks in a large part to the media, it is "never brought to mind", except when a "staunch" (a matter for a future entry ;)) republican calls for the end of the monarchy, or a member of the Royal Family gets involved in a scrape, or a lone group of protesters turn up at a royal event. Moreover, republicans would rather forget this old acquaintance, except its downfall.
The monarchy is the great link between the sixteen Commonwealth Realms. It is a bridge between governments, yet a bridge which remains apolitical. And yet it is not just "for Auld Lang Syne" that the Realms should keep the monarchy. It is for its history, its heritage, its contribution to society and for several other reasons that it should be kept.
So, to those of you in the U.K., Canada, Jamaica, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, the Bahamas and Grenada, as you celebrate the New Year, don't forget your old - and great - acquaintance, the monarchy.
A Happy New Year to monarchists across the globe.
God Save the Queen!
From a monarchist's perspective, it is worth reflecting on the particular words from the poem I've quoted in the title of this weblog entry,
"Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?"
The monarchy is, for the Commonwealth Realms, the "old acquaintance" of yore. Thanks in a large part to the media, it is "never brought to mind", except when a "staunch" (a matter for a future entry ;)) republican calls for the end of the monarchy, or a member of the Royal Family gets involved in a scrape, or a lone group of protesters turn up at a royal event. Moreover, republicans would rather forget this old acquaintance, except its downfall.
The monarchy is the great link between the sixteen Commonwealth Realms. It is a bridge between governments, yet a bridge which remains apolitical. And yet it is not just "for Auld Lang Syne" that the Realms should keep the monarchy. It is for its history, its heritage, its contribution to society and for several other reasons that it should be kept.
So, to those of you in the U.K., Canada, Jamaica, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, the Bahamas and Grenada, as you celebrate the New Year, don't forget your old - and great - acquaintance, the monarchy.
A Happy New Year to monarchists across the globe.
God Save the Queen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
