Our framework: appointment and dismissal of our Head of State
In this recent post, I introduced our draft policy statement. This was something the Executive has developed, following agreement at our last AGM, and I'm now summarising it for the benefit of our blog readers. The full document can be read on the Movement's page dedicated to its policies here.
I'm summarising the document in two series of posts. This is my second post of the first series summarising our framework for an NZ republic. It follows on from the first post in my series here. I follow the same format of it by describing the relevant part of our framework before including, in italics, a description of why we've adopted that part.
2. The appointment and dismissal of our Head of State
As I introduced in my first post of the series, we expect our new Head of State to be a figurehead for the country. Since we do this, it's important we set out how we believe they are appointed and could be dismissed. We call for New Zealand voters to choose whether our Head of State is elected by voters or by a super-majority of Parliament. Whichever way that occurs though, we call for the public to be able to nominate candidates for the Head of State. Finally, we strongly believe the Head of State should only be dismissed by a super-majority of Parliament.
When other countries have considered becoming a republic (particularly Australia in the late 1990s), the method of appointment of the Head of State has been a contentious issue. In New Zealand, we believe that the choice between two common methods must be given to voters. Whichever they decide, though, we believe a method must be available for the public to nominate candidates to maintain public involvement in the office.
In 1975, Australia also demonstrated the importance of having a strong process for the dismissal of the Head of State. It did this when its Governor General sacked the country's Prime Minster, Gough Whitlam (if he had been faster, Whitlam could actually have sacked the Governor General first). The strong process we seek is that our Head of State can only be dismissed through a super-majority of Parliament.
Our third post in this series can be read here.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
You cannot call yourselves a REPUBLICAN movement. You don't advocate a republic, as defined by the US Military in 1921:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Unfortunately, this is a familiar debate to us Anon. The above definition is just one, and hardly the most definitive (just look up the Greek philosopher Plato for example). Just because we don't follow the definition you've cut and pasted doesn't mean we're not "republican".
Post new comment