This week, former New Zealand Primer Minister Mike Moore “stirred up a hornet's nest” when he suggested that New Zealand should examine its constitutional structure with an eye toward adopting a written constitution and, possibly, becoming a republic. Predictably, the reaction was heated, but it's a debate that won't go away.
I am a republican (with a lower-case “r”, of course). This has nothing to do with the present Queen of New Zealand, but rather the notion that it's inherently un-democratic to have someone as head of state simply because of an accident of birth and, in New Zealand's case, a foreigner, as well. So New Zealanders, I believe, should choose their own head of state by a democratic means that's appropriate for New Zealand.
Here's where things get weird. Many of the opponents bring up images of “banana republics” as if that's the only way to do it. Monarchist propaganda barely worthy of notice, but let's just state what should be bloody obvious to anyone who's had even a little education: There are plenty of stable, prosperous and robust democracies in the world that are republics. There's no reason New Zealand can't be one of them.
Opponents sometimes bring up the US as a bad example, which must be a difficult thing for conservatives who otherwise greatly admire the country. Nevertheless, there's no reason that New Zealand has to adopt a US-style republic, though some see merit in that system. Again, there are many ways to have a republic, and NZ can do it another way.
Finally, there are the opponents who argue that the Commonwealth is too important to lose. They ignore the fact that the Commonwealth actually includes many republics, and there's no reason it can't have more. The Queen is the figurehead for the Commonwealth for many countries—including republics and monarchies with different monarchs.
The bigger issue in this is Constitutional structure, and that's thorny and difficult. While sometimes the ease of making constitutional change is criticised, mostly for being too easy, it nevertheless means that New Zealand is a more nimble when it comes to structural change than, say, the US is.
A bigger issue is the relationship with Maori, with whom the British Crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Any written constitution would have to address that relationship, which I suspect would be a far more difficult task than choosing between being a monarchy or a republic.
I believe that New Zealand will become a republic one day. So will Australia. But neither will change tomorrow; it will happen only after lengthy public debate. So I'm glad this has come up again, though I think it's a shame it's become wrapped up in the discussion of the death of Sir Edmund Hillary (who many people felt should've been the first president of the Republic of New Zealand).
So, let's talk about the merits of the different systems. But let's try and do it rationally, according to the facts. That, however, is probably too much to hope for. A republic, however, is not.
2 comments:
I welcome that you want a rational debate about the pros and cons of a republic. For nearly 200 years this “rational government structure” has been the major form of state in Latin America. And look at the mess all the presidents, caudillos and military dictators have produced. If a republic is such a modern way of how to run a country, why is it that among the ten countries with the highest standard of living seven are Monarchies, in fact the first six countries with the highest record in human development have without exception a crowned head of state.
Have you ever thought that it might be a good idea to have a resident Monarch in New Zealand?
Thank you for commenting! I think robust discussion and debate is an important thing, and I always welcome it.
Latin America is not the only place in the world with republican governments. One could easily point to Germany, France and Ireland as well-functioning republics, and, of course, the most powerful nation on earth is a republic. Similarly, some monarchies are, or have been, dismal failures. Some countries can't do either well.
The larger point here is that the success or failure of individual republics or monarchies has no bearing on whether either is an appropriate form of government for New Zealand, and they're no indicator of the success of a New Zealand Republic.
The fact that some monarchies have a high standard of living is also irrelevant. In none of those countries did the monarch wave a royal sceptre and create success--there were many factors that led to it. The only relevance the monarch has in that success is that stable government is a pre-requisite for national economic success. This should be obvious, but there are plenty of successful republics that are equally stable.
As for a monarch resident in New Zealand, we already have that, of course, in Tuheitia Paki, the Maori King. I doubt many Pakeha would be willing to accept him as their monarch, however.
As a republican (lower case "r"), the issue for me isn't who the monarch is, or even where that person lives (although I think s/he should be a New Zealander). I simply don't accept that any person should be a head of state because of an accident of birth. Now if a New Zealand monarch was elected democratically in some way, that's something I could live with because its the undemocratic hereditary nature of monarchy that I object to.
But if the monarch is elected, why keep a monarchy at all?
Having said all that, New Zealand becoming a republic isn't a big deal to me--there are far more important issues to address before that. But I do think a republic is inevitable.
Post a Comment