John Key: the will of the public

I personally don't see it as a case of "following" or "leading" public opinion.  It is not as though the entire population is heading in the same direction with some striking out ahead of others.   While there is a general tacit agreement that eventually New Zealand will become a republic, there are real political interests at stake, and the fact is that the interests of the most privileged sectors of New Zealand society remain firmly attached to the British monarchy.  

John Key is not merely derelictory over the matter of the republic.   He is hostile, because the people he identifies with, the people in whose company he has spent his entire working life, do not want to loosen any of their connections with a global political and economic system in which the British monarchy is now a relatively small but still very important part.

Bob Jones has a very different background, and a very different character to John Key.   Key is a politically cautious company man, Jones a rugged individualist and iconoclast.   John Key owes his wealth to the global banking system based in London and New York.   Jones built his own property empire in New Zealand, and arguably owes his wealth to the fact that he has been able to outwit the bankers.   If you were looking to draw a comparison between the republican and monarchist mindset you could not have chosen a better pair than John Key and Bob Jones.

People who cherish democracy for themselves do not necessarily desire it for others.  At the end of the war against Japan, the United States made a deliberate decision to retain the Japanese monarchy rather than place the Emperor on trial for war crimes.  In the years since, the US, and the western democracies in general, have elected to actively support the continuation of absolute  monarchical rule in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Nepal and Thailand, to name but a few.  The same considerations which apply in the case of these countries also apply to New Zealand.  The fact is that all New Zealand's "traditional allies" - the state authorities in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States of America - are comfortable, and indeed anxious, that New Zealand should remain under the British crown. 

The monarchy is a useful adjunct to the imperial system.  It provides a degree of assurance that New Zealand will not pursue its own national interest, which could detract from the economic, political and military advantages which the traditional allies are able to extract under the present arrangements.  New Zealand republicans should not be blind to the fact that, whatever they may say publicly, certain  foreign powers have a vested interest in the preservation of the monarchy and will use their influence to maintain the status quo.

The monarchy is "irrelevant to New Zealand" if by that we mean that it has no positive part to play in the promotion of New Zealand's national interest, but from an objective point of view the monarchy remains central to New Zealand's constitutional arrangements, and is an important influence upon public attitudes to a whole range of issues.   It's political influence may work through symbolism and the subconscious, but it is none the less real.   To me the republican movement is all about bringing these subconscious issues out in to the light of day, where we can examine exactly what effect the monarchy is having upon our national psyche, and how a republic might be different.

I guess what you are saying is that for most people attachment to the  British monarchy is emotional rather than rational, and that politicians like John Key cater to those emotions.   There is obviously some truth in that, but if it was the whole story then the republican movement might have progressed faster than it has. 

The New Zealand military, for example, have a common bond (including formal cooperative agreements) with the military forces of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom which is reinforced by their common allegiance to the British crown.   At the other end of the scale, the Mana Party notable, lawyer Annette Sykes, has publicly denounced republicanism as "nonsense", presumably because she sees republicanism as a threat to the "treaty partnership" arrangement between the British crown and New Zealand Maori.

The proponents of monarchy are not necessarily unthinking.  In many cases their emotional attachment to the monarchy is rooted in their perception of their own self-interest.   If we, as republicans, are to make significant headway we may have to confront the sectional interests, as well as the emotions, underlying this debate.   There are, after all, real interests and real emotions involved on both sides of the debate, even if we accept the argument that John Key is simply playing the numbers game, and doesn't really care whether New Zealand remains bound to British crown, or becomes an independent republic.

In terms of foreign interests, the US could live with a Republic of Aotearoa, provided it did not go too far down the track the anti-nuclear track that so annoyed France, the United States, and indeed Britain, and particularly if it continued to send troops to assist in US wars, along with other small republics such as Lithuania and El Salvador.  However the US is very comfortable with the present arrangement where military and diplomatic support for the US is very much a family affair for the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, presided over by a monarchy which implicitly supports that military alliance.    The question for the US would be whether New Zealand as an independent republic might break ranks and go down the "anti-nuclear alliance" path of the nineteen eighties.   I can't answer that question, and I suspect that the US State Dept doesn't have an answer either.  The present arrangement works for them.  They might therefore decide to stick with it.

That won't make for any change to our objectives for the republic.  Just something we need to keep an eye on.