In the Federalist Papers it is interesting to read Alexander Hamilton's arguments against an executive council. It appears he feared shared power in the executive would make the executive weak and unable to perform its duties but also allow the executive to avoid responsibility.

The Westminster system is no stranger to the Executive Council. Originally the executive council was a means to remove executive power from the monarch while still maintaining their ceremonial authority. The Prime Minister position became rather presidential. From British history we remember strong Prime Ministers such as Pitt and Disraeli.

Australia adopted similar patterns whether the executive relationship was formal or informal through a single constitution or multiple legislative acts. For instance the Prime Ministerial behaviour of Australia, Canada and even Queensland were very similar despite Canada and Queensland not having formal constitutions until recently.

The Prime Minister has become an increasingly Presidential position in all parliamentary systems.

The only system I can think of that has multiple magistrates in or above the executive council is Iran with its theocratic Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians.

Alexander Hamilton has the strongest arguments for a singular executive in Federalist No.70 . He argues that since the sole purpose of the Executive is to execute the law, there should be no dissension in the execution which an executive council might cause. The place for bickering is in the legislative when the law is being made, but once it becomes law, then it becomes fundamental that it is implemented as the legislators saw fit;

Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide.

If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.

There is particular irony here in the Bush Administration recently giving the Vice-President increasing executive power through executive orders. Much of what the Bush Administration has done has been hostile to the intentions of the founders of the American Republic, this is another.

Hamilton also argues that accountability and responsibility are strong arguments for a singular executive. Colloquially this is best known as Harry Truman's "The buck stops here" placard on his desk. Hamilton writes;

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds -- to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office.

Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author.

The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

Responsible government and ministerial responsibility is being trashed in Australia but I do not believe it is because of the executive council. It is modern media management. John Quiggin has an interesting response which provides a solution in the Australian example of government .

cam

Freedom of religion is a common issue in liberal democracy. How does religious liberty equate inside the framework of Australian Republicanism?

Australia is not a particularly religious nation [PDF] . In Sydney 'no religion' is the third largest faith behind Catholicism and Anglican. Adelaide is Australia's least religious major city with no religion accounting for 21.4% of those polled and religion inadequately described being another 12.4%.

As a consequence, those with non-denominational religious beliefs are a significant minority.

Globalisation has had many effects in the allocation of capital, the movement of labour and the the transferral of goods and services. It has also had an effect in unifying political movements.

The United States has bucked the trend for major industrial nations in becoming less and less religious as they have become more prosperous. As a result the religious conservative movement in America is a well organised and well funded.

With globalisation their message reaches many empathic ears in Australia and is often absorbed as political issues or platforms by Australian Conservatives.

When Australia was a closed, protected and isolated nation-state the power of an international conservative movement did not have the political strength in Australia. Any religious movement had to be home-grown and face a significant non-religious minority in the polls and elections.

Globalisation has changed this dynamic. Issues are no longer as local as they used to be, and domestic public opinion can be swayed internationally through powerful groups that are well-funded and well-organised.

That is not to claim that a worldwide religious conservative movement is repugnant, rather to point out that a well funded and organized super-minority can skew issues and politics with global reach under globalisation.

For this reason, liberty needs double assurity of protection and entrenchment, especially liberty of religion.

Religion and Republicanism

The highest form of social organisation that is obtainable in this day and age is Liberal Democracy, and as a consequence is a principle of Australian Republicanism. That may change in the future, but for now remains true.

Theocracy is an inferior form of social organisation which entrenches tyranny and social/political privilege. It is not compatible with Australian Republicanism.

Central to liberal democracy is secularism where executive, legislative and judicial decisions are made under common law with deference to individual liberty, the individual as the discrete and dominant political entity and the principle of empiricism.

This requires that religion cannot be entrenched in any of those arms of government. Religion cannot be carried by the coercion of those arms, lest liberal democracy become theocracy and the republic a tyranny.

Republicanism is predicated on the protection of minority rights from the tyranny of the majority, while balancing representation sufficiently to ensure the minority will accept majority rule.

Given that faith follows from individual conscience, religion is a highly pluralist system. From Theism, to Atheism, to Deism, to Monotheism, to Polytheism.

Sects are also highly diverse in Australia. Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Presbyterian, Orthodox and so forth.

If the state chooses a single religion to encourage, enforce or entrench then it fails as a republic as it is coercing the minority and enabling tyranny of the majority. This is by definition not a republican system.

While there are many sects and religions in Australia, if there was one uniform thought on religion would the state be able to entrench religion? The answer is again no. It only takes one person to differ from the majority and it becomes tyranny from the majority.

As this purity of religion is not achievable, due to individuals being, well individual, and of independent thought, it becomes true that the state cannot use coercion or entrenchment for any religion.

Religion and Conscience

The individual is the dominant discrete political unit in Australian Republicanism, not the nation-state or state. Liberty becomes the guiding political philosophy under such a principle.

Religious faith and belief are a very individual process, and the religious bonds between man and God very private and sacrosanct.

Individuals find great comfort, strength and guidance in their personal relationship with god. They also create strong communal and social bonds with others of the same faith.

To break, suppress or deny this personal relationship between individual and god, through coercion or entrenchment of a religion or religious belief system, is tyranny. This is not compatible under a republican form of government.

Conclusion

The only place religion has in an Australian Republic is one of maximum liberty. Freedom of religion must be an absolute.

Religious liberty must be protected from a tyrannous government system, the tyranny of a powerful minority and tyranny of the majority.

The only logical conclusion is for freedom of religion to be entrenched in the Australian Constitution; ensuring that it remains an area of personal freedom that government cannot trespass into.