Is our PM our only effective Head of State?
An American TV station, Fox 29, recently published this article on its website containing a list of the world's top female Heads of State. At No. 1 is Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. But hang on, I immediately thought, Julia Gillard isn't Australia's Head of State.
Looking down the list, there are a couple of other Prime Ministers there, which may reflect a reasonably relaxed approach to definitions, but therein lies the issue. Our Governor General is the personal representative of our titular Head of State, the Queen. Can the Governor General claim to represent New Zealanders? No, they represent the Queen. Who is left to be our effective Head of State but our Prime Minister?
If we are eventually to become a republic, as everyone seems to agree, will that mean our Prime Minister has to give up some of the mana they effectively hold? Surely, the answer is yes. Can we ever rely on a sitting Prime Minister to appropriately think through the options in doing that? No is the answer implied by the comment from our current Prime Minster that there was "no great benefit" in the people electing a Head of State (as quoted in this this NZ Herald article). Does that mean the Movement should look not to the current Prime Minister, but elsewhere, to fully consider the possibilities for a shift to a republic? Surely yes.
Cheers,
Mike Wilkinson
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
Key's comments were laughable. Asking a Prime Minister or any elected leader whether they should have their powers limited is only ever going to elicit the same answer.
Savage, what do you see as the appropriate end game? If elected leaders are out, how do you think the Movement should go about getting decent republican reform through? I am arriving at the view that the best way would be to get the opposition to agree to a referendum as a way to increase its support prior to an election (that is, before it becomes a sitting government).
Strictly speaking my criticism of elected leaders (read
'parliamentarians') implied they would all, because they were MPs, be
against any improvements that reigned in or curtailed their activities.
Obviously this is not the case and is a fallacious argument. MPs from
across the spectrum support republicansim and greater constitutional
oversight of parliament. The point to make about Key's comments is that
they have to put in context. A republic would (if designed right) allow
greater oversight of any PM. Key is not an impartial observer dispensing
impartial advise. He is an avowed Monarchist who clearly loves the idea
of being seen with Royalty. He has a vested interest in any system that
gives him a lot of political and economic power.
Won't any leader suddenly happen to become "an avowed Monarchist who clearly loves the idea of being seen with Royalty" as soon as there's any chance they'll be elected, Savage?. Yes, Key may have a vested interest in any system that gives him a lot of power, but surely so will any other leader who looks like they'll come into power. It seems to me that, if it's looking for an elected leader who isn't a monarchist, the Movement might have to wait an awful long time. Do you see any need for the Movement to consider alternative strategy?
Cheers,
Mike Wilkinson
We argue for a referendum to be held so New Zealanders can decide. Whether or not the PM at the time supports change won't change that approach. He or she will get one vote in the referendum just like anyone else. We work with any MP from any party who supports a republic and support in the house cuts across party lines. This is not a partisan issue. Some people will be influenced by what Key thinks but most won't. On the whole I prefer it that Key has made his views clear. He is clear that he is an atheist even it if loses him votes. He is upfront about being a Monarchist even tho 40-45% of New Zealanders disagree.
Thanks for the thoughts, Savage. I agree that the issue needs to be put to referendum, without any political interference in the way that's done. I see this as a continuing issue about how we best deal with waivering politicians. ;-)
Personally, I believe that the Head of Government in a republic would have greater mana than the Head of Government (Prime Minister) in the present monarchical system? Why? For the simple reason that all New Zealanders would have greater mana in a republic.
Having said that, I agree with Mike that John Key is not a man we can look to to lead the way to a republic. Key was obliged to swear allegiance to the Queen, and that act in itself compromised his integrity as a New Zealander and as a national political leader.
It can be taken as a general rule that politicians tend to be more populist and republican when they are campaigning for office and more financially, constitutionally and politically orthodox when they are in office. There is a rational explanation for this phenomenon which we don't need to go into here. We just need to acknowledge the phenomenon, and its implication, which is that politicians will not lead the way to a republic - they will have to be pushed there.
I agree, Geoff. It strikes me that we should be trying to help the NZ public dictate to parliament a shift to becoming a republic, not parliament itself deciding. That is, the dog should wag the tail, not the other way around.
Some very committed republicans believe that efforts should be concentrated on persuading members of parliament to support measures which will lead to the establishment of a republic. They are taking a tack which they believe is most likely to deliver the desired result. Those of us who are not convinced of the efficacy of concentrating attention on the current crop of political leaders may take a different tack. It is not a difference of opinion that can be resolved through argument - only time will tell who was "right". Meanwhile, we can all respect and support each other as members of the wider republican movement.
Yes I agree . A republic is all about having more control of parliament and change does not come from above in this respect. Many MPs join us and are at the forefront in parliament but changing to a republic is about more than MPs and lobbying.
Clearly, there seems to be some confusion here between 'heads of state' which can be formal, titular and ceremonial only, with little substantive constitutional power; and 'executive' arms of government, who have certain constitutional prerogatives as elected heads of government proper. Okay, so that isn't so clear in the context of (say) France or the United States, but it is in Israel and Ireland.
In the normal course, Lewis would be the one best qualified to give a definitive response on this issue, but in his absence I will put my oar in.
The distinction is between Head of Government (aka the executive) and Head of State (the sovereign authority). The Head of Government makes day to day decisions on taxing and spending. The Head of State represents the state, commands the armed forces, and decides when the state goes to war or makes peace. As the name implies, the Head of State represents the enduring nature of the state while the Head of Government represents its more emphemeral political stance.
In states administered under the Westminster system the powers of the Head of State (the monarch) are exercised on the advice of the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), which would seem to make the Head of Government more like a Head of State. However, the Westminster system is subtle and complex. It is guided by conventions and traditions in which the importance and influence of the sovereign authority is easily under-estimated. Those who fail to appreciate the nuances of the system are particularly prone to confuse the Head of Government (the Prime Minister) with the Head of State (the Queen).
I agree we work together within a wider movement but I am not sure I know anyone in the movement who thinks efforts should be concentrated on lobbying parliament. Yes, when the movement was smaller that was the most effective way to campaign. Now that more and more are joining we are broadening our work so that we are both lobbying parliament and getting out there talking to other New Zealanders about why a republic is better. There is no real divide between the movement and parliamentarians given that MPs are also members. There is movement both inside and outside parliament.
I have posted an article on the website www.republican.co.nz which is too long to post here, but which addresses some of the issues raised within the thread. The first paragraph reads:
The conflict between the monarchy and the republic in Aotearoa centres on the concept of sovereignty, yet sovereignty is rarely the issue of debate. Instead of talking about sovereignty, we talk about democracy, nationhood and national identity which are all subjects that touch on the issue of sovereignty, without getting to the heart of the matter. This is understandable, because sovereignty is a rather abstruse concept, and it is also fraught with political peril in New Zealand because of the Maori claim to sovereignty or tino rangatiratanga. So instead of talking about sovereignty, which relates to the end and purpose of the state and society, we talk about the mechanics of the state and its institutions, and the way in which we believe that the various state office holders should be selected.
Geoff,
I am not sure its correct to say it is centred on sovereignty. The standard of democracy and the type of democracy are a separate but related issue to whether a country has sovereignty. If anything the issue is anchored on discussions about two things. Sovereignty (which gets talked about as nationalism) and democracy (in particular how do we maintain and improve it). The notion of 'national identity' links both together . By national identity I mean 'I am my country and my country is me': It is not strictly just about being a sovereign country or person it is about the relationship between person and state. It involves many aspects of how a person conceives of themselves and their country and the relationship between the two. People may think of themselves as a New Zealander (independent, autonomous etc) but also in the sense that they are perhaps fair-minded or as someone who contributes to their community. Their personal and national identity is linked to being distinct and having certain values and those values include how they relate to others. But yes you are right. Talking about sovereignty is not something we do much and is something could do more off. Particularly in places where people are looking to discuss the larger concepts.
Yes, when I start considering some of the wrong tracks that it is possible for a republic to go down, when I say that a republic is not in itself sufficient to assure that New Zealand becomes a harmonious society and a self-respecting member of the international community I think I am only stating the obvious.
But it is equally obvious to me that a the republic will be a huge step forward believe that the move to a republic is absolutely necessary for our future as a nation.. I am not afraid of the challenges it may bring. I welcome them. As a republic we will be able to deal with our issues, we will have to deal with them, we will no longer be able to entrust our destiny to the House of Windsor and Buckingham Palace.
As you say, we have to consider the issues thougthfully and honestly while acting with courage and committment.
As for whether parliament will lead the way - I can't rule that out. I would be delighted to have parliament show my apprehensions to be unfounded.
Geoff,
The geeks among us (such as I may or may not be) would say that being a republic is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for us to be "a harmonious society and a self-respecting member of the international community". :-)
At times in NZ's political history, we've had exceptionally brave people stand up and take a shot against their incentives and common political practices (the names Lange, Douglas and Richardson come to mind). I don't think the Movement should plan on having politicians of that calibre. Instead, we should plan on NZ becoming a republic with the likes of Key, Cullen and Clark in power. You and I appear in agreement on this issue, Geoff.
Cheers,
Mike Wilkinson
Savage,
Do you think the reason the Movement doesn't talk about sovereignty at length is that it's not a subject easy to explain or understand? I think we are all reasonable, thoughtful people who agree that it's important. Yet, the fact we still have to couch our words carefully shows this is no simple issue to discuss, even amongst ourselves, let alone in marketing to the wider public.
Cheers
Mike Wilkinson
Post new comment