John Key and the Cabinet have followed the New Zealand Herald's advice and given what he described as a "very thoughtful speech" about choosing a new flag after a January 30th editorial had argued that "if there is to be a change...it must be the product of a far more professional exercise and carefully considered decision". At the time we argued for a two stage referendum process similar to the electoral change referendums and similar to our own plans for a two stage referendum on the head of state. Our proposal is for the setting up of a constitutional commission outside parliament (with cross party support inside parliament) who would develop two alternative electoral options - one using direct election and one indirect election. Those two models would be put to voters in an indicator referendum that would measure whether we wanted a democratic head of state and whether we preferred direct or indirect election. From there detailed plans would be drawn up and a final binding referendum would be held. The two stage flag referendum process now being suggested by the Prime Minister is a big boost for the campaign for a New Zealand head of state because it will encourage all New Zealanders to think about what we stand for as a nation and about those final steps to full independence. The PM can try and talk down the republic issue as much as he likes but there is no escaping the obvious conclusion that having our own head of state is a far more meaningful and important change. New Zealand will not be independent from Britain until we have a New Zealander as head of state. Both are changes that have to happen.
Royalism is no excuse for inequality
Wanganui Chronicle editor Mark Dawson thinks having an unelected British head of state in New Zealand is probably a good thing because it is "slightly bizarre" and "defies logic". This is a common argument used by royalists to justify the fact that we live in a democracy but we are not allowed to choose our head of state. Dawson is at least up front about his allegiances and even if his arguments are weak (and his poll unscientific) he is expressing some of the contradictory beliefs underlying the current system. There is a strong need by many in New Zealand to insist that British culture remain in a position of privilege. It is part of our colonial history and is at the core of all colonial thinking - the idea that one culture is better or more worthy than all others and that inequality can be ignored so long as you are personally benefiting from it. Of course there are just as many New Zealanders with British heritage who celebrate fair play and democracy and who want Kiwis to have a proper, democratic head of state. Becoming a republic is not a rejection of British values. It is a rejection of royalism and inequality.
Long term we can't expect everyone to stop being enamoured by royality. There will always be people who think its somehow glamourous or noble or exciting. The palace will always have PR teams promoting the royal family as laudable and relevant but royalists can't expect to keep getting their own way for ever. New Zealanders have a right to choose their head of state and only New Zealanders can be eligible for role. It is time for Royalists to understand that their fascination with royalty is no excuse to keep the contradictions in place. We live in a democracy and a democratic head of state who lives and works here is far better for New Zealand.