A model for an Australian republic

While the current Australian focus with regard to India is either on the cricket or its burgeoning software industry, there is another item worth considering - namely the Indian model for a republic. India is the world’s largest democracy with 675 million registered voters and has now been operating for 60 years. India has embraced the Westminster system, like Australia, but is a federal republic.

India has so far elected 12 presidents. The first four were, as would be expected, politicians. However since then they have elected a wide range of individuals from trade unionists to philosophers. The last president, Dr Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam, trained as an aeronautical engineer and is a world-renowned scientist. The current holder, Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil assumed office as the 12th President of India on July 25, 2007. She is the first woman to have been elected to this august office. By contrast the USA is still waiting to elect its first female president.

What is the Indian secret of success? I believe it is the way in which the country elects a president. Every five years a new president is elected at a Presidential Convention. The electors are not just the Federal Parliament, but every member of every state and regional parliament. The vote appears to be done on a preferential voting system familiar to all Australians. The model is elegantly simple and has the collateral benefit of having state and federal politicians acting together for once instead of the antagonistic positions that they always seem to adopt.

In contrast the current Australian debate is a standoff.

The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) is pushing a two-stage process of first having a plebiscite with the people voting on whether they want an Australian head of state and then letting the people decide on the model of government that they prefer.

John Howard, a true Burkean conservative, argued that Australia has a system of government that has worked since 1901. If you want to change it you must come up with a new model first, not some idealistic concepts. While he was abused in the media for this stance, it is pragmatic and realistically needs to be answered.

The ARM, on its website, has come up with six different models ranging from the people electing a president to one being elected by Federal Parliament. The ARM proposes that once the people have decided they want an Australian head of state then they choose the republican model.

Unfortunately this approach is flawed. For better or worse we live in a representative democracy. The people elect representatives to ponder and make decisions. Also the two models proposed at the last Constitutional Convention, either federal parliament or the people choosing a president, are both seriously inconsistent.

To understand why either model is flawed we have to understand the inherent weakness in democracy. The Greeks invented democracy and it was Aristotle in Politics who first postulated the problem: “How do you stop a populist demagogue from assuming power, particularly by gaining control of the army, and becoming a tyrant?”

History provides many examples.

France was a democracy following the revolution in 1789,, but within 15 years Napoleon was crowning himself Emperor.

Hitler was elected in 1932, and as head of the largest minority party, was made leader of a coalition government in 1933. As visitors to the museum at Berchtesgaden can attest, over the next five years Hitler then carried out a five-pronged attack on the other political parties, judiciary, trade unions, the military and media.

He removed the leaders or made their operations illegal primarily on grounds of national security. By 1938 Hitler was in total control. It should never be forgotten that during this time Hitler was widely popular. In 1935 more than 90 per cent of the population of the Saarland voted in favour of leaving France and joining Germany. When Hitler annexed Austria in 1938, the people met him with scenes of wild enthusiasm.

Since that time Hitler’s methods have been widely embraced, particularly in Africa, where incipient democracies are quickly turned into one-party dictatorships. Hence for democracy to succeed it must have in place a structure that prevents the rise of a demagogue. Laws are not enough, as the demagogue will either have them abolished or amended.

It was Montesquieu, in The Spirit of Laws in 1748, who first identified the three branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. The legislative makes and amends the laws, the executive carries them out and the judiciary interprets and enforces the laws.

Western democracies since then have tended to follow one of two models:

1. In the US model the three pillars are firmly separated. The US constitution is quite complex and has a convoluted structure of checks and balances. We saw a recent example of this operating when the Republican-controlled Congress tried to impeach President Clinton but failed, as it did not get the 2/3rds majority.
2. The other model is the Westminster system. Here the legislative and executive arms are intertwined. This could result in a dangerous concentration of power. To prevent tyranny, the system has developed an independent referee who can blow the whistle if he or she thinks things are going wrong.

Thus we can now see the problems with the two models proposed at the time of the last referendum and which the people, even if by default, were quite right to reject.

One model proposed was that federal parliament elects the president. This is like the home team getting to choose the umpires. Note that this is not so far from the current system where the government of the day proposes the next governor-general. We, the people, only have some protection in that the government’s choice must be approved by an independent (the King or Queen of Australia).

If the people are to elect the president, we would then need to do radical surgery on the Australian Constitution and adopt the US system of checks and balances. This would be very difficult to achieve and also it is difficult to see any Australian federal minister giving up executive power. People enter politics to gain power, not to give it away.

If, however, Australia does decide to go the republican route and choose a president, it then needs to address the next problem, what happens if the president dies?

Unfortunately assassination is not uncommon. In the US for example eight presidents have died in office (four by assassination), and one in India. This event has not had much currency in the republican debate but needs to be considered.

The current succession to the governor-general is simple; it is the most senior of the state governors-general. But if Australia moves to a republic will this still be feasible? Is Australia going to have a system where the federal equivalent of the governor-general is chosen by Australians, but the state governors-general will be chosen by the Queen? If this is the case it is likely that the state governors-general (if they continue to exist) will be approved by the federal president. This is one solution; on the other hand the Australian people may decide that the country needs to have an elected vice-president.

The election of a vice-president needs to be quickly done, for if a president dies and is replaced by a vice-president, you then need another vice-president. Again I would propose that Australia adopts the Indian model where federal parliament elects the vice-president.

Electing a vice-president then creates a third problem. What is this person going to do? Sitting around waiting for a president to die may become a self-fulfilling wish. Both the US and India have solved the problem by making the vice-president the chairman of the Senate. Again this appears to be a clever and economical solution.

In conclusion I propose the following changes to the Australian constitution using the Indian constitution as a model:

1. Election of an Australian president every five years by all the members of all the elected parliaments of Australia. The Australian president to have the same rights and privileges as the current governor-general.
2. Election of an Australian vice-president by a combined sitting of federal parliament. The vice-president to be the head of the senate.

No disrespect to the current Governor-General but I would be proud to see leading scientist and the 2005 Australian of the Year, Dr Fiona Wood, elected as President of Australia.