Oh no, here we go again. A bunch of celebrities, business leaders and politicians think it’s time to have a republic so abracadabra, one will appear. I have an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu about all this, because back in 1999 when I ran the Republic Referendum campaign for Malcolm Turnbull many of the people who attended the 2020 Summit were around then were barracking for Australia to have its own head of state.
I would say this to Kevin Rudd and other Republic supporters – do not be fooled by the 2020 Summit’s enthusiastic support for a Republic. It is as much a curse as a blessing.
While the support of sports stars, actors, CEOs and political heavyweights was welcomed by the 1999 campaign, the lesson I learnt was that these are not the people who can deliver a Republic. Cate Blanchett’s support for an Australian Head of State counts for nothing in voter land. The average voter rightly reasons that Cate is a terrific actor but what she knows about constitutional reform you could write on the back cover of a theatre program. What does count to the average voter is education about the issue and making people feel comfortable that Australia becoming a republic is as natural an evolution as was the move to Federation in 1901.
If the desire expressed at the 2020 Summit for a republic is to be translated into reality then it will be important that it be a bottom up campaign as opposed to a top down strategy. Ordinary Australians, 99.99% of whom had no voice at the 2020 Summit, need to feel a sense of ownership of the republic.
Many Australians are ready for an Australian republic, but what tempers their enthusiasm is their belief that there are “more important issues” with which Australian needs to deal. Typically, these issues will relate to healthcare, education and matters pertaining to taxation and welfare. The republic, for the vast majority of people, does not figure in their top three lists of concerns or issues upon which they adjudge the performance of a government. It’s a circular argument here — if the political elite push the republican issue up the agenda through proposing a referendum or plebiscite then many voters reject that elevation and become hostile towards a republic.
The key then is to ensure that the political and societal circumstances are propitious for the republican cause so that people do not resent its presence on the national political agenda. As Judith Brooks has put it albeit in an exaggerated way, “when a choice of [republican] models for a new constitution is being discussed at netball practice we are on the way to a successful referendum.”
Greg Barns ran the 1999 Republic campaign for the Australian Republican Movement, was Chair of the ARM from 2000-02 and is the co-author, with Anna Krawec-Wheaton, of An Australian Republic (Scribe, 2006).
At least our Kevin is trying to include intellectuals. its not the “lockout” that we suffered under Howard federally, or here in Tasmania under Australia’s first DLP government. It such a relief that we have a leader who wants to include our best and brightest, rather than the dumbfest we have put up with for the past decade. Where our leaders were looking for that divided us rather than united us.
If politicians were ice-creams they would only come in 2 flavors ……vision or division. Howard thrived on the latter as does our state premier. It was the currency that kept them in power for so long.
No personal offense intended Jim, however, your comment with its explicit suggestion that the electorate voted in and revoted in and revoted in a leader who organised a “dumbfest” for us masses who deserved it is what flavour: “vision or division”?
Indeed, there may be more important issues than becoming a united Australia, under our own flag and with a national anthem whose music(?) doesn’t sound like a cross between a funeral march and a man playing on a comb with a piece of tissue paper over it. However, the sooner we have the Republic, the sooner we can make the decisions for the more important(?) things, whatever they are. Personally, I can’t think of anything that is more important than this ex-outpost of rejects from the former British Empire, growing up enough to accept that cutting our ties with England is a very necessary thing. In fact, if we aren’t careful the Brits may beat us to it.
No, I’m not fooled by republican zeal any more than I am by the populist zeal that Barns expresses here and elsewhere. I’m actually most convinced by the Barns Mercury column of last week arguing that the public should shut its trap about the deeply malodorous pulp mill approval because it had been approved by an elected government, aka Paul Lennon, by way of abandoning planning regulations which posed “critical” problems for the proponents and effectively turning the assessment process over to them.
Why do I believe the mill cheerleader persona? No, not solely because he was once forced to admit using material from the Lennon dirt machine in a Mercury column, or to having interests in a company doing business with forestry, nor to his famously rancorous general attitude towards things green. It’s a gut feeling, or stomach feeling, if you like.
John Hayward
The best and brightest seem to forget that dumb ordinary people can also vote, and they don’t always vote according to the best and brightest. That is why they are not the best and brightest.