ideas: on government
A symbolic step means so much
I was a skeptic of the apology to indigenous Australians for the terrible wrongs governments committed early last century.
Not because we shouldn’t be sorry, and not because our regret is not deep enough. I simply felt that with everything we needed to do for the aboriginal community – the rape and pedophilia and violence and drug abuse in remote settlements, the shameful record of health and education outcomes – an apology for past wrongs was the least constructive thing we could do to improve the lives of Australians born black. I thought it was a meaningless symbol when there was so much work to be done.
I’m happy to admit just how wrong I was. The parliament’s apology last year meant more to aboriginal people, and to the nation as a whole, than I ever imagined. Black faces cried tears of joy on the lawns of parliament and around the country. White faces stood alongside, no longer shamed by the callousness of governments past. This powerful symbol was the start of something, at the very least a sense of entitlement and belonging to fuel a cooperative campaign to improve human rights going forward.
As a nation, symbols are important. Not constructive in themselves, perhaps, but powerful lightening rods for pride and patriotism and the motivation to get the really big stuff done.
Today we celebrate another ‘birthday’ of our reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. The old biddy turned 83 in April, in fact, but generously gives us a June holiday each year. It is an annual reminder of the really big symbol the country has been on the verge of adopting for over a decade yet can’t quite make happen. We’ve come a long way since I was prodded to remove my hat and stand up straight at school assembly to sing God Save the Queen, but our desire to Advance Australia Fair remains elusive while we remain a constitutional monarchy.
My learned friend and debating partner – not a monarchist so much as an advocate for the status quo – believes becoming a sovereign republic is change for change’s sake; a symbolic gesture with no improvement in how we are governed. Either make real constitutional change, he argues – a genuine separation between the executive and the legislature, perhaps – or do nothing at all.
And he’s right, of course. None of the models republicans put forward necessarily improve our system of government; they simply replace the British monarch with an Australian head of state, a role that would oversee parliament but have no more power than the current government-appointed Queen’s representative.
What I think he underestimates is the power of the symbol. I’m a passionate republican and more convinced than ever the constitutional tweak would be the most significant step we take as a nation since federation over a century ago.
It’s easy to dismiss the arguments for a republic as empty idiom. The Australian Republican Movement makes a rather tepid case on its website:
“An Australian republic will embrace our egalitarianism and the concept of a fair go. It will honour and acknowledge our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and cherish its culture, with its timeless connection to the Australian land and sea. It will recognise our British heritage and acknowledge its gifts, including our political and legal institutions. An Australian republic will celebrate our immigrant heritage of opportunity and endeavour and its contribution to our national identity. It will unite all Australians behind an Australian head of state.”
Those embarrassing royals
The last sentence gets closest to the heart of why this is important. Why, as a nation, we should be embarrassed on the world stage that 221 years after convicts were first dumped at Botany Bay our ruler remains a British birthright aristocrat. It is embarrassing our laws are signed and our monuments and events opened by Her Majesty’s representatives. It is embarrassing our best and brightest cannot aspire to rule their homeland. I’m embarrassed. And I’m not alone.
To finally cut our ties to the Mother Country and anoint an Australian-born head of state would instill a sense of nationalism in a globalised world, a sense of identity in our enigmatic culture. It would celebrate our own founding mothers and fathers and unite our current-day multi-cultural communities. It is a symbol, yes; tangibly immeasurable in its impact like most. But it is a symbol so brilliantly bright as to potentially embrace all Australians under one flag like nothing before.
On this Queen’s Birthday holiday we have political leaders on BOTH sides of the chamber who claim to be loyal republicans. And yet neither has the ticker to put the issue back on the agenda. Australians don’t want to talk about this again while Liz is still propped up on the throne, the prevailing theory goes.
Which is nonsense, of course. Australians have no great fondness for this misfit royal family. They want a republic and will vote for the right model when it is put to them again.
There is so much to do in this flawed nation. So many acts of political will needed to improve the lives of Australians and help those of our neighbours. You can’t really blame politicians for pushing the issue of a republic down the to-do list in times of economic crisis.
But those who doubt the importance of symbolism should ask an indigenous Australian just how important symbols can be.
Related posts:
Tags: Discussion
10 comments for “A symbolic step means so much”
Post a comment
Good post! I wholeheartedly agree. I’m not sure if I’m the ‘learned friend and debating partner’ you’re referencing, but if so I’d like it on record that I agree with this post 100%. Well, maybe 99% if you tone back some of the hyperbole
I couldn’t agree less.
As an indigenous Australian, it gives me great comfort to think that, even though we have a proud prosperous, independent nation, the symbol of this country’s European founding lives in a foreign country.
The last symbolic act of ownership over Australia by greedy, fat, white men is prevented by a nice old lady in London.
In other words, by keeping the Queen, Australians of non-ATSI background tacitly acknowledge that they are all guests here.
I hope a republic never comes.
Angus,
That’s a really lovely idea and one I’ve never heard expressed before. That, as a colony, we think of ourselves as guests of the traditional owners. Thanks so much for sharing that!
I guess you could look at it the other way round, too. That our ties to Britain are a reminder of the destruction of aboriginal people and culture at the hands of the European settlers. Is there not a line of thought that says severing those ties would be a fresh start, that finally this land would belong not to white or black but simply all Australians? Be interested in more of your thoughts…
Our destiny is to become a republic. As someone born in this country I view myself as native to this land. As such I respect previous inhabitants who came before me. I try, the best I can, to learn from them.
I have never differentiated people on their race nor the colour of their skin. We are all humans and as such we deserve equal treatment. And of course, so too, do the most recent arrivals.
I hope we will never again exclude people on the basis of their race as is suggested by the comment by Angus. Stating that anyone other than one particular race are just guests in this country is divisive and quite frankly, racist. Nazi Germany tried this idea and failed.
All divisive tactics, never succeed in the long run. As Charles Darwin once wrote: “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed”.
The history of human existence, unfortunately, is based upon nations/tribes conquering others. Those of us, whose ancestors came from Ireland and Britain know only too well the struggles brought upon a people by a conquering nation. The trick is, it seems, is to recognise the past, but look toward the future.
Removing the final link with Britain is acknowledging our common past. The past brought pain upon the original Australians and also great misery upon the early white slaves who endured the horrors of British/English captivity.
An Australian republic will signal the start of a truly independent nation. One that must recognise common human equality. One that should pride itself upon tolerance and understanding. Despite tabloid media hype, Australia is in a great position to achieve this. Now, sooner than later is the time to remove that symbol of oppression from our flag and unite as a nation.
Greg says divisive tactics never succeed in the long run. I’d beg to differ, though he quotes Darwin so I assume he’s talking about the VERY long run. In which case I can’t help but be reminded of Keynes, who said in the long run we’ll all be dead.
I’d like to clear a few things up from a few posts here. With an acknowledgement to Australia’s first aboriginal MP and a monarchist, Neville Bonner.
Firstly, Jason, Australia is not a colony. We were freely given total independence and sovereignty by the UK in 1926 with the ‘Balfour Declaration’. In 1931 this was legislated by the ‘Statute of Westminster’. Australia was obviously indifferent to this act of grace from these “colonial oppressors” because we didn’t ratify the Statute until 1942. Finally, in 1986, the States of Australia cut the last residual links with the United Kingdom with the passage of the Australia Acts.
The ‘Queen of Australia’ is a legal entity distinct from the ‘Queen of the United Kingdom’. We are totally sovereign and independent. There have been no British colonies on the Australian continent since 1900.
I am extremely angry at Greg for accusing me of Nazi-style racism. The article by Jason was about symbolism. I simply discussed my view on the symbolism of an Australian republic. Clearly non-ATSI Australians are not guests here in any practical sense.
In fact, Greg, your vitriol about the British is verging on racism, if you ask me.
From my personal perspective, and I acknowledge this isn’t the usual aboriginal line, the British are not the main culprits in what happened to aboriginal people in Australia.
What was needed in Australia was more British governance, not less.
From the very outset of occupation/settlement by Europeans, the British government urged administrations here time and time again to respect and treat fairly the aboriginal inhabitants. King George III’s orders to Philip were very clear on this point. In fact, right up until federation, the Colonial Office kept up the constant reminders that aboriginal people, rightly or wrongly, were subjects of the Crown and were due all British protections and freedoms under the law.
It was the local administrations and local people who ignored this advice. And at the very edges of settlement, the frontier, furthest away from any law or justice, the new white Australians massacred native people. It wasn’t the Britons who stayed in Britain who did this; it was your ancestors, Greg. And mine. These new Australians (Irish English and Scots) now occupy Australia and have created a prosperous, modern nation from this trail of genocide.
I want to celebrate both parts of my ancestry, European and Aboriginal. And I want to remind everyone that they can’t unload the guilt of the past onto the Queen or the monarchy or the British. This is a home-grown mess that our ancestors created. This is also a mess that is inherited by everyone who seeks the good life in modern Australia.
I love Australia the way it is now. I don’t want a republic because it will whitewash the past. I don’t want just another local white man in a suit becoming President. There is dialectic at play with the monarchy in Australia. It is about who we are in the past, present and the future. For me, and Neville Bonner it seems, the Queen is a symbol of everything aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people lost and gained to make Australia the greatest nation on earth.
Appreciate your lengthy reply, Angus. I do understand the constitutional intricacies that mean we are, effectively, an independent state with an autonomous government system. But in many ways – symbolic ways, perhaps – we remain tied to the Crown. And that was really my point – symbolism counts. And all that pomp and ceremony that sees us bow to the monarchy, that sees our laws rubber-stamped by the Crown’s representatives, that sees constitutional disputes resolved by the Crown; all of that demeans us, I believe, and doesn’t reflect that we ARE an independent nation that stands on its own two feet.
I think we’ve got off track a little with the what it may mean for aboriginal reconciliation. In truth, it probably won’t mean a great deal. Though I think we can all accept your feelings on it as an indigenous Australian. Neither argument is racist.
I would say though that there are many Australians of indigenous descent that would make fine ‘presidents’ and represent us admirably on the world stage. As there are many ‘white’ Australians. That choice, in theory, will be on merit – either by a majority of the parliament (as was the model we voted on at the last referendum) or a democratic vote (as many republicans continue to push for). I don’t believe fears of having “just another local white man in a suit becoming president” are justified.
Thanks heaps for the ongoing discussion. It’s great stuff.
“Effectively” independent and autonomous? Australia is not effectively independent; we are completely de jure and de facto independent. There are no ifs and buts about it.
We are not “tied” to a foreign crown, like it was viciously imposed from above; we have freely chosen to have an Australian Crown. Australians have voted to be a constitutional monarchy twice in little over one hundred years; 1898 and 1999. It is OUR MONARCHY. We democratically chose it.
There is nothing demeaning about the Australian people freely choosing to vest a non-political symbol with ultimate political power. It is wise and pragmatic. It proves just how capable we are of standing “on our own two feet.” I don’t think that any president, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, is capable of wielding the umpire role in the Constitution with as much reservation as the Crown currently does.
Any republic risks politicising the umpire role. It’s just not worth it.
Do you honestly think that if we remove the Crown we will do away with “pomp and ceremony”. Do you think that suddenly we will have some Aussie working-class hero larrikin president who likes to have a beer down the local and puts on a barbie for all the neighbours in Yarralumla every week? No; of course not. We will just replace one type of pomp with another one.
This is my thing about “just another white man in a suit”. Because that’s what it’ll be. Some self-important knob who did something or another at some point and now swans around in Canberra meddling with politics.
To just prove how free we are from Colonial Cringe, we’ll be acting out all the crassest manifestations of it. Trying to prove how big and serious we are on the world stage. Will all the big-boy countries at the UN giving us a standing ovation for finally growing up? “Oh please, please; we’re desperate for your attention and approval!”
A republic is just another foreign political system. It replaces the one that has worked reasonably well here for over 100 years with another one that is untested and has no greater symbolism.
Thank you for continuing the discussion, Jason. This is a good forum for working out Australia’s national identity. It’s the one thing that seems to really fuck up our image as the relaxed, cool-dude nation.
Ha ha ha, hilarious (in a good way). Good debate, great to see some original ideas for once.
@Angus, great thoughts but here’s my view: Australia is a colony. It needs more than a Balfour declaration to change that. All our institutions and a significant part of our psyche is conditioned by British values and traditions. That said, following this logic, becoming a republic without changnig our legal or parliamentary system will make us no less of a colony.
Also – it’s easy for King George or other Europeans living in Europe or a big city to be all warm a fuzzy. Or to walk a bridge. Put them on a frontier and then watch them turn into the same genocidal monsters others have. Sad indictment on human nature and greed but true. Let’s not glorify Europeans, living in Europe, too much.
I once was a supporter of a republic, but as a non-Anglo Australian, I now have my doubts.
My doubting line of thought begins with the idea that there’s not yet a good enough reason. People normally fight for republics, because they have a burning desire. Fortunately, no such widespread, deep rooted malaise exists here at the moment. And all this crap about the union jack not representing our cultural diversity is a lovely sentiment, which broadly speaking I agree with, but in fact, Australia is pretty darn Anglo/British in the end, regardless how much we love Thai food. We speak English, the media is Anglocentric, the arts are Anglocentric, 2nd-3rd gen migrant upkeep of original languages has not proved to be great, Australians are notoriously monolingual generally.
I think a British tradition has given us many good things, not least a (relatively) well functioning democracy and the rule of law…I think when we reckon we we really want to invent an even BETTER system, that is actually DIFFERENT, we can go for a republic. Meanwhile, if we just do the minimalist republic change, I reckon we might end up, like Australian fashion week, kinda thinking we’re a bit better than we are…and in the long run hubris gleaned from only mediocre results is never a good thing.
Having said all this, who knows, I could be swayed to vote for change, just for the thrill of it. Like trying beetroot juice for the first time. For now, I’m surprised how relatively happy I am with our progress, how uninspired I feel about what a republic will offer, and I’m actually a little concerned of all the cynical politicians (*cough* Turnbull) and big business men that could take advantage of a republic to gain more power.
Angus I for one don’t have a problem with pomp and ceremony, it’s just that ceremonials in Australia today involve the British crown and this raises obvious questions about our independence and identity. We can still have pomp and ceremony in a republic but it could be stripped down and Australianized eg the president could drive a Holden instead of a Rolls Royce