The Battle of Rorke's Drift, January 22/23, 1879.
The Battle of Rorke's Drift is one of those irresistible stories that will amaze for generations to come. In what became known as one of history's finest defences, 139 British redcoats miraculously defended a small garrison in January 1879 against an intense and sustained assault by more than 4,000 Zulu warriors. Eleven of those 139 soldiers went on to win the Victoria Cross, the most ever for a single action, including Lt. Chard for his role in commanding the defence of the mission outpost, and for his courageous leadership, intelligence and tenacity against overwhelming odds.
Rorke's Drift is analagous here because but for the unheralded work of A.C.M. and others, Australia's intelligentsia is almost uniformly republican, from its political class to its media, academic and social elite, and its other self-appointed guardians of the national interest. It's as if the brave monarchists Down Under, who are the true custodians of Australia's history, culture and institutions, are alone in their redoubt, ably protecting the nation's precious constitutional order against the chattering onslaught of republican inevitability.
The innovative political genius of Professor Flint - that Australia has a choice between a "crowned republic" (i.e., the status quo) or a "politician's republic" (a dangerous leap of faith) - calls to mind the survival instincts of Lt. Chard, who implicitly recognized the need to shorten his defensive perimeter against the approaching hordes, and facilitated a tactical retreat behind a bisected position.
In similar fashion, Dr. Flint is shortening the parameters of public debate by arguing that we are effectively already a republic, thereby avoiding the abstract (monarchy versus republic) and pseudo-nationalist (Queen versus Mate for Head of State) distractions that prevent us from focussing on the substantive issue (Crown versus politician) that confronts us, such as the vital role the Crown plays in providing a level of leadership above politics, and in safeguarding us from our own hubris on the virtues of popular democracy.
Retreating behind the walls of a "crowned republic" may be grating to the royalist, but there are circumstances when strategic retreats and partial evacuations are necessary, and when obstinancy no longer serves the public interest. The staunch royalist may shout from the rooftops that Australia is not a crowned republic, that it is an independent kingdom, a commonwealth realm and a constitutional monarchy, as evidenced by it having a Queen, but what good are semantic plumes when the country was long ago sapped of its royalist spirit?
Loyalty to our country, our Queen and our cherished system of government requires that we fight to defend these things in the political arena where the battle will be won or lost. It is vital that we preseve the constitutional arrangement whereby power rests with the people and authority rests with the Crown, so that ultimately the rights and liberties of the individual can be protected if those two things - power and authority - remain properly segregated.
Unfortunately the encroaching politician has done much to consolidate them, and the fate of the individual is becoming as vulnerable as the hapless patients in the garrison hospital at Rorke's Drift.
Hear hear. But don't forget those other brave souls that helped launch ACM when things were truly dire in the Keating years in the early 90s - people like Dame Leonie Kramer (the best GG we never had), Justice Michael Kirby (the last progressive monarchist in public life), Justice Lloyd Waddy, and - the one remaining in the public eye - Tony Abbott, John HOward's lieutenant, and potential future leader post-Turnbull.
ReplyDeleteAnd victory is sweet! The Labor government in Victoria refuses to remove the Queen from its oaths and uses the royal arms for Parliament. Labor's decade old government in Queensland continues to fly the old Union Jack vice regal flag at Government House in Brisbane. And of course no state has dared touch its state flag.
It will be a while yet before the boomers with memories of 1975 pass from public life, but with them will go their inane emotional urging for a republic.
After that... who knows what is possible for our side.
Well said, I say.
ReplyDeleteThough I certainly am a royalist in the purist sense, I also recognise the current arrangement to be aptly described as a crowned republic, for even if Her Majesty were to create a separate Australian Royal Family (as in, separate from the British Royal Family), we would still need to appoint a Governor General according to the Constitution.
Don't believe me? Look it up. Now wonder we worked out that the GG was Head of State in 1907!
On another note, though certainly monarchists appear to be gaining ground over a very sedate republican movement (the last time I visited the ARM's website, the most recent thing up there was several months old, at least), there is still a ways to go. The Governor must be restored to her proper residence in New South Wales, and we must make a point of holding our politicians to their oaths.
I must admit, standing for election to go out and keep the bastards honest seems a very enticing, challenging and fun job (if only to blow my nose at those silly republic pig-dogs!).
Appreciate the comments.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget Philip Benwell either, but in terms of daily content and the ongoing countering of republican attacks there is no better place to go than David Flint.
By the way, our dear friend Lewis Holden weighs in with his own thoughts.
http://www.republic.org.nz/node/934
I find Mr. Holden's analogy to be quite perplexing actually. He thinks that we monarchists are refusing to submit to a surrender. But what surrender? What did we monarchists lose?
ReplyDeleteI mean, if the republicans had won in 1999, and ACM was campaigning for a restoration, then the analogy would be quite apt. But the monarchy has hardly lost. Gladstone made the point on a previous post on this blog - why is the republic inevitable?
Until Mr. Holden can satisfactorily answer such a question, Rorke's Drift stands.
Um, what happens if Australians' adopt a rotating Presidency with citizen initated referenda (like Switzerland)- the most stable system of government in the world and the one, in my view, has been successfully exported (to places like New Zealand, San Marino, the American States', some Latin American nations, Canada to a lesser degree)?
ReplyDeleteI think your analysis overlooks the models out there (namely, rotating Presidency's are a few thousand years more stable than any constitutional monarchy, or indeed, any absolute monarchy for that matter). Your analysis is slightly opaque, given A) most political prerogatives are not reviewable by the courts (that is, pollies can hide under the shield of the Crown) and the courts can only partially review their scope of certain prerogatives(R v Toohey), B) generally, albeit not always, the GG gets told what to do and is generally a loyal party hack, C) most major political crises are the result of one politican getting their way (e.g. in 1975- at the end of the day not one single item in that stagflationary Whitlam budget was amended- the Crown serves some pollies over others), D)it seems that you have overlooked the fact that a constitutional monarchy was a result of Parliament (i.e. politicans') winning (And I'm not just talking about President, oh, sorry, I meant, Prime Minister Blair). The politicans' won. Parliamentary supremacy prevailed. We live in a politicans' monarchy, not a peoples' Republic (like Switzerland). The end.
Time we made the people sovereigns, not subjects, through citizen initatives' and stronger federalism. People should not wait for either a Queen or any politican to do what they should and could do for themselves. Thus, I think Mr Holden's point- you lost sight of the facts and history that is out there- stop supporting mediocrity, and a philistine on welfare, and make yourselves sovereigns.
Furthermore, the monarchist writes:
"...Retreating behind the walls of a "crowned republic" may be grating to the royalist, but there are circumstances when strategic retreats and partial evacuations are necessary, and when obstinancy no longer serves the public interest. The staunch royalist may shout from the rooftops that Australia is not a crowned republic, that it is an independent kingdom, a commonwealth realm and a constitutional monarchy, as evidenced by it having a Queen, but what good are semantic plumes when the country was long ago sapped of its royalist spirit?..."
My thoughts exactly- what an utterly irrelevant symbol the Queen is in Australia. Time constitutional reality caught up with convention, as it has in the past.
"The Labor government in Victoria refuses to remove the Queen from its oaths and uses the royal arms for Parliament. Labor's decade old government in Queensland continues to fly the old Union Jack vice regal flag at Government House in Brisbane...."
ReplyDeleteAh, and there we go again- the politicans' monarchy is grand- the Crown gives soft, subtle human touches to the cruel machinery of government, distracting the masses from how the state is utterly screwing them over. "Pomp and circumstance! I wish I could marry Prince William (despite his grossly reciding hairline)!" As Bagehot said long ago, "the Queen reminds people of an old widow crossed with an unemployed youth". That appeals to slaves and subjects, not sovereigns.
Alot of people would like to wish they are being governed by an old, frail lady.
But if only that were true. No, instead, we live in a politicans' monarchy where the Crown gives soft touches to an otherwise statist system. So, to repeat on my previous post-
Rotating Presidency's with CIR > constitutional monarchy's (probably equal to Irish or Finnish like Republic) > absolute monarchy's > Mugabee-like regime's.
Do you seriously think CIR or a rotating presidency will fly at a referendum?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Australian experience of GGs is that those appointed with the expectation of acting as loyal party hacks in the end actually were the precise opposite when the rubber hit the road.
Sir John Kerr is the spectactular example, Sir William McKell (and perhaps potentially Bill Hayden) less so.
In fact, Hayden went from being a post-Whitlam Labor leader critical of the monarchy to a de-facto supporter of ACM!! Tee hee.
As an aside, you always know someone's struggling to stay in touch with political reality when they use the word "masses" like a crank annoyed with the fact that more people don't agree with them. Hmmm....
PS: "stronger federalism" - guess you're not a fan of Tony Abbott's new book "Battlelines"... oh well. :-)
Yes, I'm a federalist and yes, I do think CIR and a (directly elected) collective, rotating Presidency would fly at a referendum (in time)-
ReplyDelete* its more stable than the status quo i.e. San Marino, Switzerland (plus if the GG fails to act on a particular issue, one of the other state Governors can perform his or her duties rather than needing the Queen to dimiss the GG like during the 1991 Papuan Constitutional Crisis),
** a rotating presidency would be more symbolic than the status quo (why not have 7 people as your head of state- a few aryans here and there, the odd asian, a few women, perhaps an Indigenous Australian representing the NT etc),
*** its cheaper than the status quo (if the Governors rotate amongst one another, we no longer need a GG, so there goes 12 million- and with developing technologies- if there is a direct election- that would cost far less).
It will take some time, yes, yes, yes- but its the only sensible model, really. I don't think there is any debate here that rotating Presidency's promote the above virtues. It's a simple empirical proposition.
As for the word masses, of course: "you always know someone's struggling to stay in touch with political reality when they use the word 'masses' like a crank annoyed with the fact that more people don't agree with them".
I completely agree- that was my precise point. I don't expect much in any Western society, whether the US, the UK or here, where we have high income taxes, capital gain taxes, high welfare expenditure, political apathy, ignorance whereby less than 10 percent of people know anything about their constitution, a state where people are "subjects", ie, in short, a welfare state, with a head of state who her own historian described as a "philistine". As I said, the human journey is from slaves, to subjects, to sovereigns. But as I said, we'll get there (to become sovereigns IN the ACTUAL political sense), slowly, but surely. Thus, Bagehot's point that the Queen reminds people of "an old widow meets an unemployed youth", generating apathy in the masses (his words, not mine).
Nevertheless, our founding fathers, designed our constitution such that if we were ever to become a Republic it would be a Swiss-style Republic. Thus, wrote one founder (Alfred Deakin):
… There are many like myself, who would be perfectly prepared, if we were bound to change our present constitutions altogether, to adopt the Swiss system, with its co-ordinate houses, its elective ministry, and its referendum,
by which the electors themselves were
made masters of the situation; but while we would be prepared to consider a proposal of that kind, the Swiss relation of the two chambers has no analogy whatever to a constitution such as
ours, in which it is proposed to retain responsible government, and in which the government must be responsible to the people’s chamber.
In short, the founders conceded ours was a politicans' monarchy, the Swiss a Peoples' Republic.
As for the party hack idea- this is true- that is why PMs have, lately, become a tad smarter in making appointments- Howard with Michael Jeffrey; Rudd with Byrce.
Finally, yes, this is the problem- stupid socialists and people who "call" themselves Conservative want to centralise power in the federal government- that is a receipe of disaster- the most stable countries in the world, whether Republic or constitutional monarchy, are highly federalist/decentralist- US, Canada, Switzerland, San Marino etc. So, no, I'm not a fan of Abbott. I think healthcare should be local, people who work in healthcare and education should be exempt from taxation and, of course, I support a voucher system. As soon as you start centralising things, that gives (Her Majesty's) government another pretext to legitmatise itself, to grow bigger and bigger, due to problem that the government itself causes.
Again, its a cultural change. Once people start thinking critically, things shall change, and hopefully we don't need to latch onto the excesses of the Keynesian welfare state.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is one positive thing I will say about the monarchy (being a (Henry) Georgist)- a few of the early kings had the right idea of requiring landlords to pay rents to the state, while wages and profits were privatised.
Winston Churchill was a Georgist, too.
Steve, when you come back to Planet Political Reality, let's talk.
ReplyDeleteIf a referendum on minor changes like requiring "free and fair" elections couldn't fly in the 1988 referendum (even though it started with 80% support at the start of the campaign) what chance would your ideas have at a referendum?
The Australian Constitution is near-impossible to change substantially, provided the existing electoral laws of gravity apply. This article might give you food for thought.
http://www.mumble.com.au/published/CTSept2302.htm
PS I liked Michael Jeffrey. MC winner, straight back, firm handshake, SOUND!!
Quentin Bryce = KRudd toadie and SPANNER
Oh, '99 Referendum Veteran you're appaulingly ignorant.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind the constitution itself was adopted by 53 or 54%? And at the time that was radical- it could be a case of extreme irony the MORE radical the change (not minor)the more likely it would be adopted- after all, the constitution was sold on the virtues of free trade and national defence. Thus, I think that was the point- if a referendum has TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL BENEFITS and POWER to the people- at the end of the day "free and fair" elections really didn't matter in a Westminister system- its the pollies' monarchy. It's symbolic bullshit, not practice. As I said, a REAL Republic would be a tangible benefit (CIR, Federalism etc).
It proves how out of touch you are on the topic of how cynical the people are against the politicans' monarchy.... I mean, gosh, even conservatives support CIR...
Although I suppose given only 10% of people have actually read this nations constitution, you are right. Hence, my point- it requires time- thus "Planet Political Reality" involves evolution.
ps Noticed the article you linked me to, said:
"...Throw in the fact that enthusiasm for a republic is lower in the smaller states...The minimalist model will never again go to the people. And direct election is unelectable in this country".
Wonderful- hence, my rotating Presidency sounds perfect. Tasmania would appreciate it.
The article also said:
"...Only Australia and Switzerland alter their constitutions by popular vote. (Others generally do it by vote of a large majority of parliamentarians.) The Swiss practically invented the referendum. Citizens there can initiate them and voters give them the seriousness they deserve, consider the issues and vote accordingly. They behave like grown-ups..."
Exactly, my point- the sensible alternative is the Swiss model and the Swiss people are encouraged to think for themselves. They don't need pollies to tell them what to vote on- they make and propose the laws, not the pollies. That is part of the move from subjects to sovereigns.
I suppose we should start by amending s128 and inserting a CIR clause (as some of our founding fathers' initally intended)!
And if that is rejected- fine. You can continue to be subjects, with growing state depedency and the joys of the welfare state.
In the meantime, I'll remain a conservative libertarian, opposed to the politicans' monarchy.
Actually Steve, I think it is you who is ignorant.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, your point with regards to the referendum's initial adoption is patently false. Acursory glance on wikipedia would demonstrate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia#Later_constitutional_conventions
As you can see in the table presented, the 1899 referendum which approved the Constitution was approved by majorities of 56% (NSW), 55% (QLD), 78% (SA), 94% (TAS), 94% (VIC) and Western Australia joined in in 1900 by a majority of 69%. Overall, the people of Australia voted for Federation by a margin of 72%. Thus, support for the Constitution was much higher than you make out.
Second, one of the key things about the path to Federation was that the smaller states did not want to be dominated by the larger ones. Hence, the double majority referendum was created. CIRs would have directly contravened this, since it would permit the more populous states to call referenda in their interests, while the smaller states would struggle much more.
And finally, the monarchy. You seem to think that being a subject is some kind of cruel bondage, but I argue to the contrary. It is that fuedal relationship of loyalty in exchange for protection that truly makes me prefer monarchy to any form of republic. I prefer a monarch who is able to reject a bill, especially on the grounds of the public interest (take, for example, the various laws giving ever more power to Brussels from London - they could arguably be construed as treason). In theory, the Westminster model does permit this, but by convention, the right of veto is hardly ever used.
Also, you state that a rotation of Governors as Head of State would be better than the current arrangement, but I'd like to know how you'd choose those State Governors (who are currently appointed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Premier). Honestly, you have to consider that if you're going to present your model as superior (not to mention it would be much harder to get off the ground since it would require changes to be made to the various state constitutions).
And, of course, you fall into that traditional republican trap of wanting to select people on the basis of their race. Please, can we leave race out of this and decide someone's worthiness for the job of Governor/Governor-General on merit alone (ditto for gender). That, sir, is equality. Racial and gender representation does not make said representatives equal. In fact, it discriminates against worthier representatives, who, by sole virtue of their ethnicity (whatever it may be), are deprived of the chance to contribute to their society.
Please, stop spreading that little lie. I always hate republicans who are like that.
Please all go and read this article on the issue:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.monarchist.org.au/articles09_detail.html?_SKU=1243502071721079&index_no=1