- The Debate Daily
- Posts
- Should Australia Become a Republic?
Should Australia Become a Republic?
Rachel Reeves's CV questioned 📜 | Ukraine strikes Russia with UK missiles 🚀 | Liam Payne’s funeral held 🌹
Welcome to today’s issue of The Debate Daily!
In today’s email: There is increasing debate over the role of monarchical influence over political life in many constitutional monarchies. In the case of Australia, the debate over becoming a republic has intensified with King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s October 2024 visit serving as a reminder of the influence that Britain’s monarchy still has. Supporters argue a republic would ensure an Australian head of state and strengthen national identity. Opponents contend that the monarchy brings stability and historical continuity. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supports a republic but others believe the country needs further dialogue and consensus before pursuing constitutional change. Is now the right time?
By Jennifer Bailey
The Headlines
Rachel Reeves's CV under scrutiny at PMQs: Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced allegations of exaggerating her past achievements, including her tenure at the Bank of England and her role in retail banking. Critics demand clarity on her professional history amid concerns over her credibility.
Ukraine uses UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles in Russia: For the first time, Ukraine has deployed British-supplied long-range Storm Shadow missiles against targets inside Russian territory. This escalation signals a shift in military strategy amid the ongoing conflict.
Liam Payne's funeral attended by One Direction members: Family, friends, and former One Direction bandmates gathered in Amersham for a private funeral honoring Liam Payne, who passed away at 31.
Debate #048
Should Australia Become a Republic?
With continued British influence in Australia seeming outdated, a republic would address this issue and strengthen Australian identity and representation, integrating the country into the modern world.
National Identity and Independence - A move to a republic would allow Australia to appoint an independent head of state chosen by its people, aligning leadership with Australia’s evolving identity and multicultural values. Supporters argue that retaining a foreign monarch feels increasingly outdated in a nation that values independence and diversity. A republic would symbolise Australia’s full sovereignty, reflecting a modern identity free from colonial associations.
Democratic Representation - Moving to a republic would mean an Australian citizen, chosen democratically, serves as head of state. This change would enhance representation, bringing leadership closer to the people and better reflecting Australian values. Supporters argue that this is an essential step in separating Australia’s government from colonial-era symbolism. A recent YouGov poll ties in with this sentiment. The findings show fifty-one per cent of Australians don’t believe their country will be a constitutional monarchy in 100 years’ time, indicating that becoming a republic is an inevitable step in allowing Australia to move forward.
This change would enhance representation, bringing leadership closer to the people and better reflecting Australian values
Modernising Governance - Australia's transition to a republic would modernise its political system, aligning it with progressive democracies. By removing the foreign monarchy, Australia can create its own governance structure. This shift would foster institutions that are more responsive to the needs of the 21st century, prioritising merit-based leadership over inherited titles. Embracing a republic allows Australia to redefine its national identity and sovereignty, making governance more relevant to future generations.
However…
While becoming a republic would arguably better represent Australian interests and help to modernise the country, the stability that the monarchy provides still resonates with Australians and is a better option than the uncertainty of a transition away.
Political Stability and Continuity - Australia's current constitutional monarchy has provided a stable political framework for over a century. The monarchy acts as a neutral and ceremonial figurehead without the risk of political influence or conflict. Some argue that the system has worked well and that shifting to a republic could introduce political instability or unnecessary changes that complicate governance.
Public Sentiment and Tradition - Many Australians still strongly connect to the British monarchy and its traditions. The royal family was held in high regard, particularly Queen Elizabeth II. For some, the monarchy also represents an important link to history, heritage, and cultural continuity. King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s recent visit demonstrated that the monarchy still has symbolic worth to many Australians. Abolishing it could alienate those who value this historical connection.
Abolishing the monarchy could alienate those who value its historical significance
Complexity of Transition - Transitioning to a republic would not be simple. It would require amending the constitution, which involves a referendum and widespread public approval. Additionally, questions about how to select a head of state—whether through election or appointment—could lead to political divisions. The process would involve legal and political challenges and there’s no guarantee that the outcome would provide a better system than the current one.
Summary
Australia has had the British monarch as its head of state for over a century but as modern ideas of meritocracy that generally oppose inherited status and favour an elected head of state become more widespread, the argument for a shift to a republic will become ever louder. Arguably, the monarchy fails to properly represent a modern Australia characterised by its diverse population and the values they stand for. It would also arguably improve democracy by introducing an elected head of state who better represents Australians and ensures the political system is in line with what many believe democracy should be. However, the stability that the monarchy offers cannot be ignored because having a politically neutral and ceremonial head of state is arguably a vital tradition that unites the country and limits the scope of political divisions. Many Australians still value the tradition too and the complex process of transitioning away from it would arguably only make people more divided since there needs to be broad agreement on how to move forward constitutionally. Overall, Australia has a strong democracy that is working well but many will still feel that the lingering monarchical influence stops it from fully modernising and aligning itself with liberal values. Thus, while the monarchy’s role is largely symbolic and doesn’t negatively impact what is an effective political system, the question is whether it is a symbol that has a place in modern Australia.
What do you think?
How much weight should we give to preserving traditions versus modernising our practices?
Would having a politically neutral head of state be better than having a politically partisan head of state, even if a majority of people opposed this?
Which other Commonwealth countries, if any, would benefit from becoming a republic and which might not?
To Vote, Comment, or Leave Feedback, Visit Our Instagram
What On Earth Is Going On?
Yet Again, US Vetoes UN Gaza Ceasefire Resolution
The US vetoed the UN Security Council Resolution because it did not oblige Hamas to return Israeli hostages. The rest of the council was in favour of the resolution.
On the one hand, the US continues to defend Israel from an unfavourable deal. Israelis are still haunted by hostages taken on October 7th and, therefore, will not accept anything short of their return. Additionally, accepting the UN plan would not have punished Hamas’ actions on October 7th and would signal a weakness of Israeli security forces in saving their captured citizens.
On the other hand, failing to get a ceasefire still prevents hostages from returning and leaves the grave humanitarian crisis in Gaza with no solutions. The US ultimatum to Israel to boost humanitarian aid did not result in significant progress. The US and Israel seem to preserve the current status quo so far.
What does this mean:
The US still stands firm and unchanged in its support for Israel and its way of running the conflict in Gaza. However, the international community seems to grow more frustrated with the inaction in Gaza and hopes for some change to prevent the conflict from escalating further.
This newsletter was brought to you by writer Jennifer Bailey and editors Ozan Selcuk and Kit Swift
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.
Feedback
If you have have any questions or feedback, feel free to reach out to us directly on any of our social media, or at [email protected]
Reply