The Queen of Papua New Guinea

Two stories in the news converge this morning: the birth of a son, third in line to the British throne, and the Australian government's new 'Papua New Guinea' solution to the on-going refugee crisis. In my previous post I aired some thoughts on the refugee issue - folly really, because only an idiot would wade into that debate - so today, with the newspapers adorned with baby pics, I'II shoot my mouth off about the more sedate topic of constitutional monarchy. There are a minority of Australians who continue to agitate for a republic. Much of the momentum has gone out of their campaigns, but they cling to the hope that when the present monarch dies, Australia will move to the republican model and break its last links to the British homeland. This, the republicans believe, is an inevitability - it is just a matter of time. Like other progressive causes, republicanism supposes that history is on their side; the whole movement of history is towards a republic and, more particularly, towards consigning the monarchy and the whole idea of monarchy to the dust-bin of history.

It is the "inevitability" mentality that I want to address. It is underpinned by a belief - or rather, a faith - in "progress". You can't stop progress, they say. But actually, you can. I strongly believe, on the contrary, that, within certain parameters, human beings are the masters of their own destiny. There is little or nothing that is "inevitable" and "progress" is what we make it. Papua New Guinea is an example of this. When the country achieved independence (from Australia) in 1975 it was fully expected by everyone concerned that it would move to the republican model of government. Its' flag, its' constitution, its' institutions, were all primed for a transition to republicanism within the Commonwealth of Nations. It was regarded as inevitable, and part of the march of history to which Australia too is beholden. But it is not what happened. Instead, once the Papuans achieved independence, they embraced the British Crown with unexpected enthusiasm. They had no appetite for republicanism; rather they regarded their ties to the British monarchy as one of the nation's assets. In a post-colonial world awash with struggling banana republics, the Papuans very wisely decided that constitutional monarchy was one of their strengths. The country has had all sorts of political and economic problems since independence; in amongst the crises, constitutional monarchy has provided a platform of stability for the young nation.

In the world at large, in fact, there is now a movement back towards constitutional monarchy as a preferred form of government. Republics do not have a great track record. Over the last few decades the drift towards republicanism has waned and there is a growing appreciation of the value of constitutional monarchy. Dozens of half-arsed republics look wistfully upon the stable constitutional monarchies that have outperformed the alternatives throughout the post-colonial era. This, largely, is why I remain a firm supporter of constitutional monarchy in Australia. Like the good people of PNG I value stability, continuity and tradition. Republicans of my acquaintance don't seem to be motivated by a conviction that republicanism offers a better form of government; rather, their motivations are largely based in an ideological quarrel with royalty as emblematic of all forms of "elitism". I don't share that aversion. I'm not on a crusade to destroy all forms of "elitism" in the world. I don't long for a flat Earth. In principle, I like the idea of monarchy and aristocracy - a class of people devoted to excellence.

The alternative in Australia, in any case, is horrifying. It is important, to me, to have the "elitism" of the monarchy to offset the otherwise crass egalitarianism of the Australian character. The republicans cannot offer a workable method for appointing or electing an Australian Head of State, and worse, they cannot offer any decent examples of people who would be suitable in the role. What is inevitable is that, under a republican model, the office of Head of State would become politicized. Inevitably the country's political processes would move towards a more presidential system. I regard this as wholly undesirable. The British Westminster model of government is demonstrably superior to either the French or the American presidential models, and a constitutional monarch as Head of State is the best foundation for preserving the Westminster system. The monarch is above politics. That's the positive side of the "elitism". The Queen doesn't dirty her hands in the political process. I value that aloofness. I even value the fact that our Head of State resides 12,000 miles away from Canberra. The idea of a Head of State who is "one of us" fills me with dread.

On current figures only about 40% of Australians want a republic. The figure has been declining steadily for the last 20 years. The last attempt to introduce a republic through constitutional referendum failed dismally. Despite the assumptions of republicans, it is not "inevitable" that this trend will be reversed any time soon, if ever. PNG - our nearest neighbor - provides a lesson in that political reality. We don't have to jettison constitutional monarchy if we don't want to. History doesn't compel - it's what we make it. I see no reason why Australia cannot remain a constitutional monarchy under the British Crown indefinitely. Even our large population of immigrants - Asians, Middle-Easterns, Africans - support the constitutional monarchy and develop an attachment to the Queen and the Royal Family. It is one of the institutions they value in this country. Lots of them, in fact, have had experience of post-colonial banana republics and have a more sober view on this matter than do native born Australians.

The fond hope of Australian republicans is that when Queen Elizabeth dies Australians will be repulsed by the prospect of Charles becoming King. They lose me there too. The Leftist liberal media hate Prince Charles. They make fun of him every chance they get. I remain a great fan of the Prince of Wales. He's exactly the sort of man I want to see as Head of State. The alternative in an Australian republic would be - God help us! - a sportsman, or a token aborigine, or some other emblem of Leftist progressive tokenism, the first handicapped Head of State, the first lesbian Head of State, the first transsexual Head of State, and so on, whatever the latest "anti-elitist" fashion might be. I take it that that is the whole basis of Barry Humphries' long-running satirical characterisation of "Dame" Edna Everidge - that's what an Australian aristocracy looks like! Confronted with that, along with the Papuans I say God Save the Queen.




- Harper McAlpine Black