Absurdistan
Václav Havel, leader of the Velvet Revolution, 1936 - 2011
The late former president of Czech Republic, Václav Havel, often described the Soviet system in Czechoslovakia as "Absurdistan" - a country where absurdity was the norm.
After today's opening of parliament I do wonder if we're living in our own version of Absurdistan. The Governor-General commented that the ceremonies today were a reflection of the "will of the people". I find it hard to believe that, given the chance, it would be the "will of the people" for Royal Commissioners*would turn up to open parliament on behalf of the representative of the head of state of New Zealand, who lives in the United Kingdom and doesn't have anything to do with New Zealand constitutionally, other than rubber-stamping the Prime Minister's choice of who her next representative will be every five years.
It's absurd enough that New Zealand taxpayers shell out $7.6m - the same as the Republic of Ireland does on its president - on someone who performs all of the activities of the head of state (except opening the place which is at the centre of our democracy. All because a certain monarch with a name similar to the current heir had parliament dissolved once). The monarchy is absurd and out of touch.
Don't get me wrong. This sort of absurdity does have a certain enchanting quality to it. It's steeped in history - history, of course, now revised so that the original opponents of democracy, the Sovereign and their court, is now cast as the historical defenders of it.
And with enchantment comes the enchanted. Over the last few days I've been engaged with one monarchist via Twitter in what they clearly see as a desperate fight over whether it's accurate to describe the Governor-General as "acting" as head of state. Apparently "The GG does NOT act as HOS, the GG acts on behalf of the HOS." Never mind what the Letters Patent say (well, I do mind thank you... if you're wondering, they say the Governor-General "shall have and may exercise the powers and authorities conferred on him by these Our Letters Patent").
Then of course there's our oath. It is absurd that our elected representatives swear allegiance to an un-elected individual, or any individual for that matter. That's the stuff of tinpot dictatorships, the kind Havel railed against. The Greens quickly knocked together a survey, finding unsurprisingly that 75% of the 650 respondents wanted the current oath changed. Co-leader Meritiria Turei stated "We do not serve as MPs out of any sense of loyalty to the British monarch — our loyalty is to New Zealand and our unique place in the world." Hone Harawira, who had previously been thrown out of the House for trying to change the oath on the hoof, shouted his own oath while walking to greet the clerk of the House. John Pagani welcomed his protest.
The Prime Minister responded by succinctly summing up the situation:
"That's the constitutional monarchy system that we have and I think every MP therefore is bound by that and should swear their allegiance."
Well said Prime Minister. At the heart of Absurdistan is an absurd institution: the constitutional monarchy system.
*Does anyone know who the Royal Commissioners actually are? How much do they get paid? And where do I apply?
Update: YouTube provides the answers. The Commissioners are the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice O'Reagan, and Justice Winkelmann.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Be cool, Lewis. I like the concept of Absurdistan, but I reckon it's better seen as a many-headed Hydra that we face. If we focus on removing one head, such as the Oath, there'll be two more to replace it.
I see Shearer has added his voice to the idea of reviewing the oath. This is a good sign of a wider consensus building within parliament. The taking of the oath is a moment when the symbolism and legal standing of the monarchy come into full focus and every time it occurs this question will be raised. Who are our MPs actually working for?
I also don't see the logic in having both 'oaths' and 'affirmations' (and said so in my submission on the bill). Having two is completely redundant. There is nothing in the definition of an oath that says it has to be religious and there is no reason why any MP has to swear allegiance with help from god. It would be better to streamline the oath entirely. Have one secular oath that all MPs take regardless of their beliefs in a republic or in god(s). A commitment to working in the interests of New Zealand and all New Zealanders. Short and sweet without all the unnecessary duplication.
So far there has not been enthusiasm amongst the general population for a change to a republic or omitting the monarch from various oaths. So if the pollies want a change to the oath let's hope they allow "the people" of NZ to have the final say if there should be an oath/affirmation made to them by MPs.
In some of the Australian states the state politicians themselves decided to change the oath, without bothering to hold referenda in the states. Maybe as the elected reps they thought they have the right to decide what the people want....so an oath to "the people" becomes like an oath to themselves, as the representatives of "the people".
A referendum on an oath? No doubt the monarchists would be whinging as they always do about the cost of that. Anyway, if the oath states it is to the people, then it is to the people. It makes about as much sense as the absurd claim an oath of allegiance to the Queen equates to an oath to New Zealand... but that, of course, is the point of this post. We're living in our own version of Absurdistan.
Post new comment