A street in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war. Monarchy New Zealand thinks this is what a New Zealand republic will be like

The Herald on Sunday feature article (not online) on the future of the monarchy has revealed some interesting sentiments from Monarchy New Zealand's Simon O'Connor:

"In terms of Julia Gillard I think it's quite disappointing, she is stuck in a 20th-century mindset. Republicanism is an outdated idea."

This is a nice piece of spin, but the reality is that Mr O'Connor is defending an 18th century institution in the form of the constitutional monarchy. The fact the British monarchy lost its appeal during the 20th century doesn't make republicanism "outdated" by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is Gillard was repeating a long-standing ALP policy for plebiscites on a republic.

However, the really interesting bit is an unquoted statement wherein Simon "cites violence in Lebanon and the contentious 2000 US elections of examples of where republics have faltered." If this is verbatim what Mr O'Connor said, it's simply staggering. There is no analogy between New Zealand, the United States and Lebanon. For starters, Lebanon's civil war was created by deep seated religious divisions, not by republicanism. Secondly, assuming Lebanon was like New Zealand with the Queen as its head of state, that would hardly have helped since the Queen is head of an established church and reigns "by Grace of God".

The US example is laughable - that was an argument over a closely fought election that was decided in the US Supreme Court, hardly any different from parliamentary disputes over legitimacy. There have been two elections since that have gone without a hitch. I suspect, like the comparison with the United States, that Mr O'Connor isn't serious or is being deliberately deceptive.