Knighthoods and Sir Paul
The recent press release about the passing of Paul (Sir Paul) Reeves has touched off some debate among members regarding knighthoods and titular honours. What do you think about the way we use the terms Sir and Dame?
If you haven't read our press release you can read it on the main page of the website (under 'Recent Media'). It was short and simple and paid our respects to a man that many of us had genuine admiration for. Paul Reeves may not have been a hardcore republican but he worked in his own way to make NZ a more inclusive society and advance the cause of an elected head of state.
The members who contacted us wanted clarification on the issue of knighthoods and on the use of titles such as 'Sir' and 'Dame' (especially given their colonial and royal heritage)
The policy we have adopted is relatively straightforward and I thought it would be a good idea to set it out so that members can debate it further if they want to. Members disagree about titular honours but overall it is not actually a necessary part of the republic debate. Related to it, yes, but it is not integral. The debate over titles happens in many countries irrespective of whether they are republics and it is not up to the republican movement to be prescriptive on this issue.We are here to point out the options so that people can make informed choices.
Here are the key issues and our overall position on them:
Should NZ have a system of honours where worthy people are acknowledged and rewarded?A separate but related issue from the republic debate so we must leave it for New Zealanders to decide. Most New Zealanders support some form of honours and awards system
.
What should the criteria for the current honours system be?
Whatever it is it needs to be clear and transparent. We are critical of the current system because of the secrecy involved. We believe the lack of transparency is indicative of the way royalty avoid public scrutiny and typifies the unchecked power given to the Prime Minister's office on this issue. We continue to raise this issue whenever it is appropriate to do so. The system is not inclusive and marginalises any republican uncomfortable with receiving an award linked to the monarchy. It is out-dated and colonial in its language and in its ceremonies and needs to be updated irrespective of when we become a republic. It represents institutional discrimination on the basis of gender and political belief. It is indicative of the divisions and contradictions caused by the Monarchy's involvement in our constitution. Too many knighthoods seem to be handed out to friends of which ever party is in power and a more neutral and non-partisan system is needed.
If we have honours should some have titles attached to them?
Again , a separate issue and not for us to decide. Some like the idea of titles others argue against them. Some are ambivalent. Personally I say no but I understand the arguments of those in favour of titles.
If titles area used what should those titles be?
If titles are chosen then they should reflect our heritage and be widely accepted and used. To some the use of Sir and Dame even if we were a republic would be acceptable (in Iceland they simply adopted the royal terms even after they became a republic). To me they are out-dated and carry to much baggage with them.
Should the movement use the terms Sir and Dame in our press releases and public statements?
This is at the heart of the debate among members. As a rule we are looking to win the larger debate so we avoid nit picking or anything that would makes us look petty in the debate. We are within out rights to refuse the use of titles such as Sir and Dame as a matter of principle but we tend to just use the terms as they are commonly used so that debate about a republic carries on without people getting side tracked on semantics or thinking the issue of titles is integral to having an elected head of state.
It all depends on the situation. We want to engage people in conversation so as a rule we use the name or title they prefer. Some 'knights' like Russell Coutts and Peter Leitch don't mind if people don't use the title. Others such as Dame Kiri Te Kanana or Sir Michael Hardie Boyes tend to prefer people address them in that way. When we talk about people with titles or talk to them we judge what is appropriate for whatever forum the discussion is taking place in.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Thanks for setting out the Movement's policy, Lewis. I agree with its focus on "the larger debate" and fear that becoming involved with specific issues (such as our titular award system) will mean the Movement is likely to have less success with its priority, New Zealand becoming a republic.
the campaign (in the post-election period ) then we will need to sort
out our positions on a range of related issues. Most of the tricky ones
are related to national identity. The flag, the national
anthems, honours & titles, oaths and affirmations. Other
constitutional and political issues such as size of parliament or the
upper house, even the treaty, are more clearly separate from the issue
of an elected head of state. National identity issues due to their
symbolic nature are often much harder to separate out I think.If you were listing them, what are the interconnected issues we need to think about? In order of priority.
Thanks for the thoughts, Savage. I agree we need to think about interconnected issues and this isn't simple. For my info, why do you think "other constitutional and political issues..." are clearly separate from the issue of an elected head of state?
Just to clarify, Savage wrote this article.
For me the distinction is between those constitutional arrangements or procedures that are clearly prescribed by legal statutes and which are clearly separate democratic issues and those constitutional arrangements, protocols and ceremonies that are more symbolic and open to interpretation with regard to what they mean or represent.
Two examples are the treaty and the flag. The state's ongoing obligation to honour the treaty signed between the British crown/parliament and iwi in 1840 is a well established principle in international law so becoming a republic has no effect on whether the state should honour the treaty. If it has no effect then there is little reason to comment on it and doing so would only detract from the republic debate. Monarchists understand this legal principle as well so that is why it is not part of the wider debate.
The flag however is more tricky. Changing the constitution and changing a national symbol are interconnected. There is no law that says we can't have another country's flag on ours and no rule that says retaining the Union Jack signifies only deference or subservience to the UK. One republican's symbol of colonialism is another's symbol of heritage. Some republicans want to change the flag but others don't. Both sides present sound arguments so the debate goes on. Most likely the Union Jack will disappear from our flag once we become a republic but you never know. Is changing the flag a separate issue? We don't have to specify what a new flag would look like but we could adopt a simple policy about removing the Union Jack?
Post new comment