A model for an Australian republic

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.