I tried to binge-watch the stupendously expensive Netflix drama, The Crown, over the holiday season. The streaming service spent ₤100 million ($171 million) to give the Windsors what one critic called the "Downton Abbey treatment". The first few episodes were engaging: the dying King George VI, blue blood giving him no more protection than anyone else against the consequences of smoking, the unsettling shadow of his brother's abdication hanging over yet another precipitant transfer of the crown, this time to a young woman. But the dramatic possibilities soon ran thin.
I'm sorry the new Queen had to have injections in her cheek because she had to smile so much on her marathon first tour of the Commonwealth and I suppose televising the coronation ceremony was a milestone of sorts, but when it comes to dramatic tension we're not in Wolf Hall territory.
More World News Videos
The Queen misses second public event
Queen Elizabeth II misses the New Year's church service, a week after she missed the Christmas service due to a heavy cold.
I say this by way of illustrating that I'm no gushing royalist and even gorgeous frocks and Matt Smith (as Prince Philip) can't make me coo over The Crown.
But since the election of Donald Trump, my attitude towards the monarchy and the Australian republic has changed.
Yes, an Australian head of state is desirable as a sign of our maturity and independence. But when it comes, I would like it to enshrine all that is good about a system that delivered 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth and to ensure its stability.
In opening up the architecture of government at a time when post-world war certainties are shifting and Australians' faith in democracy is slipping, we invite the opposite.
The percentage of Australians dissatisfied with democracy has gone from 14 per cent in 2007 to 40 per cent, according to the ANU's Australian Election Study. It's clear what this means for the minimalist model of a republic with a president elected by Parliament: on the nose in 1999, it has no chance in the 21st century. A directly elected president is the only model that will fly. But why would a disenchanted electorate stop there?
A revived Australian Republican Movement has boasted it has the support of a majority of federal parliamentarians, even George Christensen, but little attention has been paid to the caveats the conservative MP placed on his support. This is how he puts it in his blog: "I have declared my support for an Australian republic, but only if the move was truly egalitarian, with a head of state who was elected by the people.
![The oversight of the Queen is arguably preferable to the dangers of US-style presidential races.](/web/20170103163853im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/h/q/h/z/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gtkooh.png/1483401050323.jpg)
"My other proviso is that there would need to be a clear separation of powers between the executive (or head of government and ministry) and the legislative (or parliamentary) arm of government."
Christensen says he would never support an "elitist" or "politician's" republic.
![Claire Foy as Queen Elizabeth II and Matt Smith as Prince Philip in The Crown.](/web/20170103163853im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/s/n/u/4/5/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gtkooh.png/1483401050323.jpg)
He suggests that "separation of powers might be achieved by doing away with the notion of a prime minister. Instead the head of government power currently held by the prime minister would go to the head of state".
This is a recipe for a US-style system that has delivered that country one of the most unpredictable, divisive figures ever to enter the Oval Office and, ironically, one of the most elite administrations ever, if elite means rich rather than code for progressive.
![President-elect Donald Trump has triggered a surge in bond yields.](/web/20170103163853im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/j/3/y/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gtkooh.png/1483401050323.jpg)
After Brexit and the US election, who is willing to bet such a system could never find support here as an expression of exasperation with politics as usual? In the face of that prospect, I'm learning to love the Queen.
That doesn't mean the electorate's manifest dissatisfaction with our political system should be ignored. As co-editor of the Herald's letters page, I get a daily dose of the disgust and despair people feel at the lack of leadership and integrity of our politicians. The ANU's figures suggest this is becoming a national emergency.
Before we can debate a republic, our political parties and the MPs who represent them need to deal with this credibility crisis. As long as they are seen as the "elite", putting self-interest above the interests of the nation, our democracy is under threat. Letter writers would suggest cosy arrangements like claiming an allowance for renting an apartment in Canberra owned by a spouse need to go. The Letters contributors' brains trust would also recommend: campaign finance reform, the establishment of a federal Independent Commission Against Corruption and an end to spin-doctored, poll-driven, blame-game politics.
Politicians need to realise that with every appointment of a former MP to a government board or diplomatic posting, or mate to a Senate seat, they are chipping away at the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Having large real estate portfolios but opposing reform of negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks also doesn't help.
What is needed is an explicit and authentic agenda to restore the faith of the people in their Parliament, preferably bipartisan, but if not, the party leader that pledged him or herself to it would reap the electoral benefits.
And in the meantime, let's keep the Windsors. They might make for dull television and a political system yet to reach its full promise, but I'll take that over Trumpist excitement any day.
Julie Lewis is co-editor of the Herald Letters page.
0 comments
New User? Sign up