Rights, the republic and participatory democracy

The debate over a constituent assembly could re-engage the public imagination, and support identification with important shared achievements in Australian history.

So, for example, instead of a chauvinistic nationalism (which seeks to generate some excitement over the failed invasions of Turkey, Vietnam and Iraq) Australians might prefer to identify with the overthrow of the White Australia Policy and the recognition of Indigenous custodianship. We might also embed in our constitution the popular renunciation of aggressive war, a consistent mechanism chosen by the oligarchy to ingratiate itself with the imperial power. Similarly we could give formal recognition to our immensely popular universal health care system, as a means of protecting it from betrayals through the “free trade” deals which would further displace Medicare with private insurance schemes.

It was precisely the fear of such a wide ranging debate that led elitists such as Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull to propose the “minimalist” republic, with no role for citizens.

It is true that participatory democracy can be wild and unpredictable, and can lead to the derailing of elite agendas. Yet such a wide ranging project as a constituent assembly could forge a popular and vibrant definition of national identity. A Bill of Rights would be an important part of that process, and would become one of the key measures of Australian citizenship and therefore also the new Australian republic. The failure of the elite model of 1999 gives us that chance.

Of course, a Bill of Rights might be prepared in a single line law, which simply adopted into Australian law the International Bill of Rights - the two covenants which Australian politicians signed years ago. This would be very neat. But, in the unlikely event that such a move succeeded, would it not create yet another weak national institution which the Australian oligarchy would rapidly corrupt, and which the public would fail to defend?