Australia - A Republic? Pro's And ConÐ''S

Australia - A Republic? Pro's and ConÐ''s

The question of whether to retain the monarchy or move to a republic is one which has been

debated in Australia since before federation in 1901.

On 6th of November in 1999, there was an Australian referendum, concerning the questions whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament, instead of a constitutional monarchy with a Governor General appointed by the Queen of England. But the amendment did not pass, with a rejection of 54% of the votes.

Today, there is a very lively and impassionate debate between the republicanism screaming for the overdue liberation from the British Monarchy and the monarchists fighting for the status quo.

There are a lot of reasons for both possibilities. In my second essay, I will try to point out the two alternatives and in the end, I will conclude with my personal view.

To begin with, I will point out the reasons that plead for a change in the form of government towards an Australian republic. One of the main reasons for an Australian republic is the fact that Australia is a culturally diverse country; immigrants from across the world call Australia home. The Queen of England, however, does not represent the average Australian. It is frequently being argued that an Australian should be appointed as the head of state. Another reason is that only as a republic, Australia could fully express its democratic values in its system of government. Australia was one of the first places in the world in which all men had the vote. It was also one of the first countries to recognize the women's claim to the same right. In Australia, there has never been any local position or House of Parliament filled by the hereditary principle. All these factors make the circumstance that Australia's government is administrated by the Governor General Ð'- the occupant of a hereditary office, quite strange. Furthermore, in a democracy, all citizens ought to be able to aspire to all public offices; and all public officials ought to be, directly or indirectly, elected by the people. An inherited office seems therefore a little out of place. A republic, on the other hand, as being the only complete democracy, would seem to be a very Australian thing. At the moment, the Constitution of Australia is a strange compromise. It does not only refer to directly elected politicians, which is quite democratic, it also relates to Australia as a "subject of the Queen" and, since a subject is someone who is ruled but does not rule, this is a very monarchical and colonial aspect of the Constitution.

Apart from the democratic contraries, there are also efforts and ambitions of patriotic origin. Many Australians simply want to show their independence from Britain. The Queens principal residence is in England, her principal office is as the Queen of the United Kingdom and she and her family represent Britain internationally, even in contexts in which the Brits are in competition with the Australian. To sum up, one can say that the Queen's principal loyalty is clearly to the interests of the United Kingdom.