Natasha Stott Despoja has an article on the ARM's new Mate for a Head of State campaign. She writes on the inanity of an absent foreign monarch, connect Australian history to the Republicanism and offers some data on the loyalist base. The Republican movement needs a damn the torpedoes campaign more than anything else.

From the article;

The notion that the success and stability of our country is in any way dependent on the rule of an absent monarch is ludicrous.

I totally agree. Also;

The republic debate is not about dismissing our history or traditions; it is about facing them. It is about understanding that our past is filled with so much for which we can be justifiably proud while acknowledging that for which we should feel ashamed.

This is probably a way to explain the "cheerful" history versus the "Black-arm band" history. Australia's past is replete with tyranny, for which we should be ashamed of, and have a national and political memory for, otherwise we will not put the protections and checks against those abuses in our system - and future minorities will suffer at the discriminative and tyrannous hands of government.

It should be noted that the Australian Democrats are the ones who have proposed a statutory Bill of Rights for Australia which the major parties have constantly ignored.

Stott Despoja writes;

Those opposed to a republic remain almost without deviation at 35 per cent. So it is the uncommitted and unaware, not those opposed, who require support and information. We need to engage young people, not just because of votes and percentages but as a matter of identity, to ensure they feel engaged in the future of their country.

The small sample on the frontpage SSR poll shows a similar number with 31% saying never to a Republic . That 35% figure will erode if people are involved in the process. Prior to the Republican referendum support jumped to 70% as people realised they could get involved in making something better, improved and more perfect. Once the professional politicians polluted it up, that dropped to a bare minority.

The lesson there is, ignore the people at your cause's peril. The crowd is wise, they did not want John Howard's pre-amble, nor a system that only changed the name of Governor-General for President. They wanted a better political system which represented them in a superior manner.

The professional politicians, ARM and members of the constitutional convention were unable to produce that. Choosing timidity and a single issue over genuine reform. As a result the referendum failed.

Damn the torpedoes, provide the platform for a superior constitutional and parliamentary system which protects individual rights - people will come on board.

Democracy's morality is the expectation that the public will be directly involved in the selection of public officials and all that entails. This morality is important as it is where public institutions get their legitimacy from. The morality of democratism is very strong in Australian culture.

Not only are Australians a republican people but they are a democratic people too. That graph is from a 1998 Newspoll which asked those polled if they had to choose from the three models which would be their choice; direct election, parliamentary appointment after election within parliament and a council composed of judges and former governor-generals appointing the head of state. I am not surprised that the natural Australian instincts for democratism won out.

When democratism is chosen over appointment it is not only a desire to be involved in the process, it has ramifications on the legitimacy of the public office. Those that said they wanted to elect a President are also saying the legitimacy of the President's office is tied up in their approval. The civic component of this goes far beyond the dry choice of a constitutional model.

It is also a warning for future drafters of republican constitutions; ignore popular will and the public's desire for democratic morality then the cost will be the failure to establish republican government.

It is my firm opinion that any Australian republican model is going to have to incorporate a directly elected head of state. This raises separation of powers issues which it is up to republican constitutionalists to solve, and Australian republicans to communicate to the public, such that the public can satisfy their demand for a legitimate democratically moral system with the negative realities of executive and legislative power accounted for under limited government.

I only see two possible options.

One: If a parliamentary system is to be maintained with its inefficiencies in separation of powers, then a directly elected Governor-General has to represent the Bill of Rights directly and have as their popular mandate the requirement to protect those rights from executive and legislative intrusion. Veto would be the main technology to achieve this though some kind of formal mechanism to force legislation into judicial review would be beneficial as well.

Two: A presidential system where the executive becomes a separate office from parliament. In other words an executive in the style of the Washington system.

The second option is my preference.