Ireland back in the Commonwealth: good for republicans
The Queen will make an historic visit to Ireland later this week. The visit represents the crossing of the threshold for the Irish people - and perhaps another threshold may soon be crossed. In October, the people of Ireland will go to the polls to elect their head of state, the President of Ireland. Currently leading the race is independent senator David Norris, an openly gay candidate who has gained his nomination from four county councils across Ireland. The contrast with the secretive - albeit apparently consultative - way our Governors-General are selected, and dismissed by our Prime Minister couldn't be greater.
But the really interesting thing about Norris is his view that the Republic of Ireland should join the Commonwealth. While the Irish presidency is a non-executive position, the president can openly discuss issues of national identity. Indeed, it's refreshing to see that a candidate for the presidency can openly argue for (or against) something like an international organisation. Compare that, again, with our Governor-General. Whenever they take a view on anything, it apparently imperils the "neutrality" of the Crown.
In May last year, Norris spoke at the launch of a book calling for Ireland's membership of the association. He argued Irish the Queen's role in the organisation is today simply "titular" and that the Commonwealth provides financial, political and sporting links Ireland otherwise misses out on. The senator also correctly identified that today the majority of members of the Commonwealth are republics.
This wasn't the case when Ireland became ineligible for membership on April 18, 1949. When Ireland declared itself a republic the British Commonwealth - as it was then known - required all members to be "united by a common allegiance to the [British] Crown" as per the Statute of Westminster 1931. Ireland's declaration was signalled at the 1948 Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference (the forerunner of the modern Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, itself renamed because of republican membership), along with India. Indian Prime Minister Nehru told the conference India's new constitution would declare that country a republic by 1950. The Prime Ministers were unable to reach agreement on how to handle republican members of the Commonwealth. In the mean time, Ireland declared its republican status on April 18 and excluded itself from the British Commonwealth.
Ten days later on 28 April, a hurriedly arranged second Prime Minister's conference agreed to a compromise on the issue of allegiance to the Crown by creating the "Head of the Commonwealth", a position held by the British Monarch. This was the so-called London Declaration. India remained a member as a republic, followed in close succession by a number of African states. The only requirement was republican members re-apply for membership on becoming republics, which was later scrapped in 2007.
This loophole was used by Apartheid South Africa and Rabuka's Fiji to leave the Commonwealth on declaring themselves republics. Neither reapplied for membership until after political reform took place in each country (Fiji remains suspended because of the 2006 coup, led, ironically by a monarchist commodore of the Fijian navy). The loophole is often, cited by monarchists as some sort of mechanism to exclude New Zealand (or Australia, or Canada) from the Commonwealth should we become republics. Sadly looking at the popular perceptions of the Commonwealth and monarchy (take the recent New Zealand Herald poll asking whether we should keep the Queen and Commonwealth membership versus becoming a republic, for example), putting that lie to bed will still take some time.
So, Ireland's non-membership of the Commonwealth is largely an accident of history that has never been corrected. Why this is is something of a mystery, but it's obvious that there is continuing ill-feeling towards the former British Empire. The Commonwealth is wrongly seen as the inheritor of this legacy. In fact, the modern Commonwealth is the antithesis of an Empire. As a voluntary organisation of Sovereign states, the Commonwealth is the most practical expression of our common heritage. We also get the Commonwealth Games, an excellent opportunity for our athletes to compete on the world stage.
Unlike retaining the British the monarchy, Commonwealth membership does not undermine our sense of national identity. It would not prevent us from having a head of state of our own - indeed most of the arguments for retaining our "British heritage" relate to the benefits we accrue from the Monarchy.
It's not hard to see why David Norris wants Ireland to join the modern Commonwealth. Perhaps most importantly, Ireland's membership of the Commonwealth would provide a boost to republicans in New Zealand. Here is a state that gradually removed the British monarchy from its constitution and transitioned to a republic. The Republic of Ireland is probably the most-cited example of a successful Westminster-style parliamentary republic. The office Norris is running for is a great example of what a "president of New Zealand" could look and act like (and, of course, what they wouldn't do as detractors claim). Being able to add "in the Commonwealth" to that increases the authority of that proposition greatly. We should welcome the Irish back into the Commonwealth with open arms.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
" As a voluntary organisation of Sovereign states, the Commonwealth is the most practical expression of our common heritage."
The common heritage used to be British or being ex-UK or ex-British Commonwealth ruled. Well, that is no longer the case with the ex-Portuguese Mozambique and the ex-Belgian Rwanda. They were only neighbours of existing members of the commonwealth. So, what exactly the current common heritage of all the nations of the commonwealth is much more uncertain and brings forward the question of the commonwealth's relevancy and raison d'etre, given the existence of the UN and regional blocs.
Ireland is still a divided land, with Northern Ireland still being answerable to London. A majority in Northern Ireland may be happy with that, but nevertheless, that is a major point of difference from any of the other Commonwealth nations. The R. of Ireland's non-membership of the commonwealth is perfectly understandable, given the fact that Ireland was partitioned and only part of it is actually independent.
I imagine that some warming to the idea of joining the Commonwealth is because the common British heritage of the Commonwealth nations has become more irrelevant. Some of the warming to the UK itself may be because of the recent loan to Ireland from an already indebted UK, with fewer strings attached than the Euro-area loan.
I imagine Irish membership would be a boost to those who seek to remove the Monarch as titular Head of the Commonwealth. As Ireland's history and background is so different from NZ's, what is right and what should happen in Ireland is not necessarily right for a NZ context.
"Unlike retaining the British the monarchy, Commonwealth membership does not undermine our sense of national identity." Membership of today's Commonwealth does indeed add nothing to our identity whereas the Monarchy does symbolise our heritage. Even the value of the Commonwealth Games has weakened with many top Canadian and UK athletes saving themselves for American and European championships. However, it does remain a greater chance for NZ athletes to gain medal glory compared with the Olympics.
Time for you to join us in the present, Gerontosaurus. If voters decide to join the Commonwealth, or allow those who they elect to decide to join, mustn't that be because they feel a connection - a heritage, even - with it and with Britain. Who are we to say, no, you can't join because of x, y or z? Are you not a fan of letting the people decide?
Fair enough.
As a matter of interest, apart from being part of the United Nations, what do you think is the common heritage or connection between Mozambique, Rwanda and NZ to justify the extra Commonwealth link?
Sweet as, Gerontosaurus. I know little of Mozambique or Rwanda. (Prior to your comment, I didn't even know who was involved with their colonisation.) If I were to guess about it, though, I'd say what justifies their link is their voters' desire to be part of the Commonwealth. That desire has yet to be tested through a political process in NZ, of course, but the Movement's seeing what it can do about that, isn't it? (That's quite unlike all the monarchists who appear to be dead against finding out what the people think.)
The Republican Movement of NZ is at pains to point out that becoming a Republic would not affect NZ's membership of the Commonwealth. The RM are concerned only with removing the Monarch of NZ from NZ's constitution.
I am not sure how much input the people of Rwanda and Mozambique had in their countries' decisions to join the Commonwealth.
Of course, I cannot speak for all other monarchists, but I am definitely in favour of democracy in determining government policy. If the public were prepared to bear the extra cost especially where opinion polls showed little support, I would prefer to see a greater number of referendums on important policy initiatives and constitutional issues. I think that the recent Keith Locke referendum proposal was flawed in its structure.
Flawed in its structure, aye? I thought you opposed it because it was a private members Bill... nevermind.
I don't see how Rwanda or Mozambique's membership of the Commonwealth undermines the point I made re the relevance of the monarchy versus the relevance of the Commonwealth. There's lots of other members New Zealand has precious little in common with, other than Commonwealth membership.
It's pretty obvious from this discussion why we keep repeating the point on Commonwealth membership. You know that most of the positive things people associate with the monarchy are actually to do with the Commonwealth - so the point must be fudged as much as possible.
"Flawed in its structure, aye? I thought you opposed it because it was a private members Bill... nevermind." You reference a previous acrimonious thread to make a snide criticism. Fair enough, it is your site (or is it the RM site) Indeed I did criticise the bill on that basis too - it was introduced by a party list member of the Green Party, whose manifesto did not mention it supported removing or seeking change to the HoS, illustrating the inherent flaw in the democratic accountability of the NZ MMP system with its closed party lists.
You know that most of the positive things people associate with the monarchy are actually to do with the Commonwealth Some may try to to make that dis-association from the monarch. I disagree. For one example, the British heritage is no longer the common thread of the Commonwealth as Rwanda and Mozambique membership illustrates.
*Prepares to be labelled a troll*
I don't see what was derogatory about pointing out an inconsistency... I'm genuinely interested as to what the flaws of Keith's Bill were, aside from it being a members Bill.
Hey Grentosaurus, because I've only recently become an active connector on this blog, I little of what's gone on in posts pass. If you're not keen on being labelled a troll, might I suggest saying something positive every so often in relation to the Movement or its cause?
" perhaps you could try not baiting?" pot..kettle..black. Maybe sometimes you read disagreement as "baiting"?
"I'm genuinely interested as to what the flaws of Keith's Bill were, aside from it being a members Bill."
Fair enough...I did cover it in the aforementioned acrimonious thread but will briefly repeat. My complaint was not related to the proposed technical constitutional changes but to the structure of the referendum process. From memory - there was to be a referendum with three questions....appointed Pres, direct elected pres nd status quo. If the status quo came third, then the two types of presidency would be be up for another referendum. In other words - the status quo would be gone before the type of republic had been decided on. My objection centred on the point that before finally deciding on changing the current system, voters should just have one republican option to commpare it with.
In other words....the structure of the referenda should be..as the Australian Republican Movement recommend:
1. Do you want a republic....if yes, then
2. Direct election or parl. appointment (before this referendum, the details of the constitutional changes would be thrashed out and publicised).
3. Winner of referendum 2 against the status quo.
No, disagreement isn't baiting. Making comments like "(or is it the RM site)" is. I'm certainly the one who blogs and comments most on this website, mainly because I'm the one elected to publicly comment for the Republican Movement. However, there are plenty of other members commenting and some others blogging.
...and now a constructive discussion:
That is a valid criticism, although not really a flaw as such.
It's pretty unlikely that the status quo would lose to both republican options, but I take the point.
The fact that no one else seems to put quite the same amount of energy into promoting the republican cause as Lewis does is hardly grounds for criticising him. Lewis and I take different positions on republicanism, but it is Lewis who provides the forum in which I can debate those issues, and he does the same for Gerontosaurus and monarchists in general. Common decency (and common sense) requires that we show gratitude to Lewis for his enthusiasm and energy, rather than insinuating that he should do less.
If I was Irish, I personally would have difficulty in welcoming the current British monarch to my country. The outrages perpetrated by the British government, the RUC, and the British army in Northern Ireland were all done in her name and throughout the "troubles" she did nothing to dissociate herself from those outrages. I would not welcome her as a foreign head of state in those circumstances. To do so would come close to being complicit in the crimes committed against the Irish people.
Personally, I have no interest in the British Commonwealth, and I believe that the feeling is mutual. When, in my long past youth I graduated first in class at the School of Forestry I was denied the Commonwealth Forestry Organisation prize for highest achieving student, and was subsequently informed by the staff of the school that the award was given to another whose loyalty to the Queen and the Commonwealth was "not in question". Whether that was a fair and proper decision would be a matter of opinion. However the incident did nothing to enhance my respect for the so-called (and mis-named) Commonwealth of Nations. All in all, I would prefer the republic of Aotearoa not to be a member of the Commonwealth.
Woah - that's incredible. They refused to give you an award because of your republican views? So much for freedom of conciousness then.
Thirty years after the event former staff of the Forestry School suggested that an injustice may have occurred, and that a formal inquiry could be made to obtain redress. However, one has to keep this incident in perspective. Some years previously, scores of teachers had been dismissed from their profession because of their perceived lack of loyalty to the monarch, and before that hundreds of New Zealanders had been forced out of their homes and off their land for refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the British Crown.
For all these wrongs, which range from the grievous to the trivial, redress is impractical, unnecessary and inadequate. Reform of New Zealand's political and social institutions is the only way to correct the wrongs of the past while preventing further abuses of power in the future.
The monarchists believed that by disposing of dissenters as they did they were strengthening the foundations of the state. What they actually achieved was a regime of fear and deceit which has become a canker eating at the core of the state, leaving it bereft of moral values and political conviction.
From the outside, the New Zealand state appears solid and even impressive, but it has a hollow heart. An optimistic view is that the moral decay has been stemmed by a more recent trend towards openness and tolerance of dissent, but the reality is that the state has failed to nurture the values of liberty, equality, fraternity, truth and courage which alone would give it the strength to face the crisis of our times.
I believe that a Republic of Aotearoa could survive and overcome the gathering storm which will bring the Realm of New Zealand to its knees. Thus the "republican question" is not whether New Zealand will remain a monarchy, or become a republic. The question is whether the monarchist state can transform itself into a republic, or whether it will fall, allowing the formation of republican institutions from the grass roots of New Zealand society.
Post new comment