The Herald Sun reports comments by the Governor of the Australian state of Victoria. His Excellency said "Australia becoming a republic was probably inevitable" and gave some pointers on his preference of a model:
"If, for instance, a governor or a governor-general was elected by the people, that would bring a significant political element to the office. People like myself and so on would hardly think it reasonable to go on the hustings and put yourself up for election."
Now, the monarchists will probably get mad that the Governor is even discussing possible models, as he's getting involved with a host of political issues. However, the Governor raises some key misconceptions about electing the head of state. First, the idea that election implies a "significant" political element.
The only real issue is Presidents may every so often speak out of turn - but that's no different from what the Governor is doing here. Secondly, the 'people like myself' argument is nonsense - the suggestion that only populist politicians will be elected is refuted by the experience in Ireland, Iceland, Austria and Finland.
I must point out that in Ireland at least, every president has been a politician prior to their presidential campaign (with, perhaps, the exception of McAleese, who failed to succeed in her bid to be elected a member of the Dail). Surely that, at least, is a significant political element and one which does refute the notion that a president wouldn't be a clapped out politician?
P.S.. Is there any way I can still post on here but not have to receive all of RMANZ's blasted press releases? I much preferred your old weblog: at least then I wasn't seemingly contributing to the popularity of RMANZ! :D
You can edit your subscriptions under your user profile (http://www.republic.org.nz/user/) - go to "edit" then "my subscriptions".
You're right about Ireland's presidents - but I don't think that's what the Governor meant by "significant". More than likely he meant political interference.