For the centenary of Dominion in 2007, Republican Movement Chair Lewis Holden argued now is the time for New Zealand's politicians to show visionary leadership, as the country's parliament did a century before.
Visionary leadership is a rare quality in New Zealand. In 1907 Joseph Ward's Liberal government gave us such leadership in declaring New Zealand a dominion within the British Empire. New Zealanders followed this lead enthusiastically - expressing a new confident identity in everything from the names of major roads to businesses and sporting trophies. The creation of The Dominion newspaper was born from that spirit and for five years after the declaration Dominion Day was widely celebrated. However, the election of the unashamedly imperialist Prime Minister, Bill Massey - a strident opponent of dominion status - resulted in Dominion Day being steadily downgraded. The initial sense of national celebration and vitality was lost.
Like the republic debate today, the dominion issue was one of national identity. Dominion status was a largely symbolic change but Ward understood that for a nation symbols matter. In 1901 Australia's federation left New Zealand a colony within the empire. Australian-born Ward sought to use dominion status to raise New Zealand's profile, arguing that a greater sense of nationhood would - and indeed did - arise from becoming a dominion. Ward argued that the changes required would be overcome by creating uniquely New Zealand symbols. It was during this flowering of New Zealand identity that symbols such as the Kiwi began to emerge as a way of expressing a sense of our unique nationhood.
Throughout the dominion debate, Massey's conservatives sought to downplay and dismiss the whole issue as being not even worth considering. When this failed, they undermined the debate with fallacies and distortions. Massey argued that the sky would fall in should constitutional changes be made. They spread anxiety and fear by arguing that it would cost New Zealand greatly to become a Dominion; they argued it would lead to an all-powerful Prime Minister; they made deliberately erroneous comparisons between New Zealand and the Dominion of Canada; they insisted proponents were trying to sever ties with the Empire.
Yet, for all their attempts to deny the debate, Massey was shown to be wrong. New Zealand's democracy remained resilient, and warnings of a slippery slope to national ruin proved false. These same fallacies and anxieties have now reappeared in the republic debate. All that divides the opponents of a republic from the opponents of a dominion is one hundred years. At present around 40% of New Zealanders want New Zealand to become a republic. Yet monarchists insist there is no issue to debate. They resort to repeating the same fallacies: that we will have an all powerful President; that we will have to leave the Commonwealth; that becoming a republic means adopting a US style republic.
There is also a disappointing lack of visionary leadership from our politicians. With such large numbers for and against a republic, they sit on the fence trying avoid offending the middle ground. The move to a republic is a bigger and arguably more important change than the move to dominion was, but it is also about improving our democracy and our standards of political debate. It is about our ability to choose our own head of state and our ability to control and develop our own democracy. While we maybe appear to be an independent, sovereign nation, we still have a head of state that is at odds with that sense of independence. For this reason, republicans argue that we need to assert our nationhood, maturity and independence by having a head of state of our own.
We have the benefit of the last hundred years of history to see that many parliamentary republics, with ceremonial heads of state, are democratically successful and stable. We have a strong democracy because the people of New Zealand have a strong democratic ethos – not because we have a Sovereign who pays us visits now and again. Issues such as whether our head of state is elected directly or indirectly by the people of New Zealand can be decided easily by referendum. There are plenty of precedents for successful republics of this nature, where the head of state plays a positive role in political and social leadership. Such heads of state are an effective but subtle check on the Prime Minister, more so than our Governor-General, because they are not appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister.
Opponents of a republic insist on making fallacious arguments in an effort to derail any debate. The cost of maintaining a New Zealand president is one of them. Yet the President of Ireland costs about the same as our Governor-General, and there is no reason to suggest a New Zealand equivalent would cost more. The status of the Treaty is another common target. Legal academics are virtually unanimous in carefully stating that a republic does not downgrade the status of the Treaty. In fact, a republic would become a milestone in race relations - because a New Zealand president would acquire the Crown's duties, a republic would bring the Treaty home, the president would have the mana to be a guiding hand in race relations.
In an increasingly competitive globalised world, New Zealanders are grasping the need to assert our nationhood, articulated as a national identity that is our own. A national identity implies symbols that accord with our values. The monarchy simply does not stand up to any analysis in this regard. It is an institution of exclusivity and privilege that discriminates on the grounds of religion, gender and birth. These are not and have never been values that New Zealand stands for or aspires to.
Ward understood the power of symbolism in 1907. He understood that bold statements are about who we are, where we are going, and what we stand for. A republic would be such a statement. The opponents of the dominion like opponents of a republic lack any alternative vision for New Zealand and consistently deny the cracks and contradictions inherent in our constitution. Who among our contemporary politicians is ready to show Ward's visionary leadership and see them off? A republic would be a statement of confidence in New Zealand, a signal to the world of our independence. It will take time - but like the dominion, the constitutional issues are a challenge to embrace, not a bogeyman to be feared. To move forward we need visionary leadership: a vision of a confident, outgoing New Zealand with national symbols that are inclusive and inspiring. A republic is the way forward - we look forward to the day when September 26th as Republic Day, celebrating our national identity and independence, and inspiring a new generation of New Zealanders.
