Something for modern republicans to ponder, in This Country , Mark McKenna writes that monarchists have cast the Governor-General as being a position that represents the people, giving it republican-like legitimacy. But republicanism is more than just removing the monarchy or having an Australian head-of-state, it is a whole series of constitutional and governance principles from entrenched rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, a representative legislative, legal equality, political equality, etc etc.

McKenna writes:

While republicans continue to stress the need for an Australian head of state, monarchists seek cleverly to further entrench the crowned republic by casting the prevailing system as the property of 'the people' - a strategy which, in spite of its deceit, at least acknowledges rhetorically the degree of voter alienation from the political system. This alienation is something that the republic has been unable to address.At the moment, republicans have not found a way to communicate any urgency or passion in their cause.

McKenna argues that two people and periods in Australian history amplify that. He discusses John Dunmore-Lang in the 1850s which is one of the most interesting decades, constitutionally, in Australian history. This site tends to focus far more on Dunmore-Lang's contemporaries, Charles Harpur and Dan Deniehy. McKenna writes that Dunmore-Lang saw republicanism in all politics and every political issue. He was able to articulate republican principles through each and every political issue of the day. I think it is fair to argue that South Sea Republic sees politics in a similar manner and has used republican principles to articulate policy responses to many political issues of the last three years.

This site has not been able to transmit any urgency to a wider republican audience, but I don't think that was South Sea Republic's intention anyway; one of the purposes to go into detail into the history, philosophies and doctrines of Australian Republicanism was to give it greater grounding, so that political issues could be answered and derived from a republican framework. This, IMO, should give Australian Republicanism a solid contemporary foundation rather than the 'boo' republic of the 1990s where Australian Republican leaders said 'republic' and Australians, being a republican people, nearly agreed with them on that alone.

The other historical persona McKenna draws on is Robert Menzies who managed to cast the decentralised and independent structure of Federation inside the history of the monarchy. This is conservative view of Australia, as without the history of Britain and the monarchy the conservatives are deprived of antiquity and would be forced to embrace a liberal future. This is the problem American Conservatives face as the US Republic was created through a liberal and rationalistic leap.

McKenna argues that Australian Republicans have not offered a civic ideal of Australia that has successfully countered the mystique of the crown. In my opinion the leap will have to come through liberalism, as the rationalism - or idea for the sake of it - will be an over-riding factor. Any conservative approach to a republic inevitably gives conservatism and obstruction an advantage, and this will mean all the errors, spaghetti code and failures through omission in our present constitution will continue to live on and produce inferior political outcomes.

More Reading on Mark mckenna

• Mark McKenna
• Australian Republicanism
• John Dunmore-Lang
• John Boston's Pig
• Australian Republicanism: A Reader
• Universalism in Australian Republicanism
• When even a Commonwealth is too Republican
• The Inevitable Republic Strikes Again
• Of Constitutional Doctrine Past
• William Lane's One Man One Vote
• Is There Room For The Political in Australian Republicanism?
• Civic Ideal vs Mystique