A republic and the stability myth

Our stability comes not from the Constitution, but from ignoring what it says. Enormous power is given to our royal ruler, yet the system only works when the power is not used. Does that make any sense to anyone?

Forget about left and right. Stop thinking about whether you liked the result in 1975 or not. Instead, ask yourselves is there any other system which only works when its written rules are ignored?

In practice, our politicians follow a second set of democratic, unwritten rules, called constitutional conventions. The conventions provide our stability, because they rest on a widely shared acceptance of democracy - that power is exercised by the majority of those we elect. But the conventions are not legally enforceable.

Having two sets of rules means that those who lose elections have a second path into government - by gaining the favour of the Crown, as in 1975. Those who don't want legislation enacted have a second option to block it - by gaining the favour of the Crown. Those who don't like the result of the last election don't have to wait 3 years. They can trigger an early election - by gaining the favour of the Crown.

We appear to have stability because usually the conventions are followed. But if in a dispute, one side chooses to rely instead on the written rules, those rules prevail, and the system fails.

The only reason for two sets of rules is the Crown. Conventions evolved to limit Crown power. But the 1975 crisis showed them to be subordinate to the written rules. Since then, Crown powers have been the chief source of instability in our Constitution. To entrench democracy in our Constitution we need to abolish the Crown - and its powers. That is the real reason for a republic. It's just unfortunate that most advocates of a republic don't realise that.