A recent Newspoll indicates only 33 per cent of voters support the option of an Australian republic with an indirectly elected President. In the 1997 election for the Constitutional Convention, the Australian Republican Movement -- the main supporters of the indirectly-elected President -- received 30 per cent of the formal votes cast.
Is this a coincidence? Not if the history of the 42 constitutional amendment referendum questions put to the Australian people is any guide. In constitutional referenda, voters generally follow the recommendations of their elected delegates, particularly No recommendations.
While a Party or group may carry its own supporters, it cannot convince any significant group of the supporters of any other Party or group to vote Yes.
The total Yes vote for a constitutional amendment has never significantly exceeded the combined vote of the political parties supporting change in the previous or simultaneous Senate election.
It has, however, sometimes fallen significantly below it. Voters follow Yes recommendations of their elected delegates with limited reliability: they follow No recommendations of their delegates very reliably.
If the referendum is held separately from a general election (as half of the 42 constitutional referendum questions put to the people have been), voters are even less likely to follow the positive recommendations of their delegates. On average, the Yes vote for an amendment is 19 percentage points lower than the votes of the supporting Parties in the previous Senate election. Where the referendum is held at the same time, the "Yes" vote is only, on average, 7 per cent lower.
These are perfectly understandable results. It makes sense for people, with lots of things much more germane to their everyday lives to pay attention to, to delegate decision-making to the party or group they support. If a referendum is held separately from a general election, it is easier to pay specific attention to it.
It is also reasonable for people to be more cautious in supporting changes to the fundamental rules of the political "game" than supporting someone for a single term of Parliament. In other words, you may have a chance of convincing your own supporters to change one of the fundamental rules of the political game: but it is hubris to think you will convince people who will not even support you for a single term of Parliament (or a one-off convention).
The rule is bipartisan or bust: which is perfectly reasonable when we are talking about the fundamental rules of the political game. And even bipartisan support is not a sure-fire success. Of the 12 constitutional amendments put to the Australian people with support from both Government and Opposition, only eight passed Two received majority voter support but did not carry a majority of States (and so failed), two did not even receive majority support. None of the 30 amendments put up without Opposition support passed, and only three received a majority of votes, failing to carry a majority of States.
All of which suggests the "official republicans" are doing quite well to hold, or slightly increase, their public support. It holds out no prospect of them actually winning.
The dynamic of discussion will also work against the official republicans. The first piece of information one receives about their case -- an Australian head of state -- is their best point. Every piece of information after that about the actual proposal provides potential reasons to vote No.
The argument that people must support the current proposal, or else the push for a republic will fail utterly, is nonsense. The official republicans need the people of Australia: the people of Australia do not need the official republicans. The current system works fine, and can continue to work fine indefinitely. There is no rush. A No vote will be a vote for "sorry, not good enough, go back and try again". Which is really what the official republicans deserve. Their vision is an empty, negative one.
They wish to remove from the Australian Constitution the Crown whose current holder is resident in the United Kingdom and which we share with the UK, Canada, New Zealand and various small Carribean countries.
There is a powerful reason to do so, one articulated by John Hirst in Quadrant magazine in September 1991: the Crown no longer occupies a substantive place in the public culture of Australia.
There is an empty space at the centre of our public life. Those pushing a directly-elected President, as a manifestation of the sovereignty of the people, have an attractive vision of what to fill that space with: as the opinion polls indicate. The official republicans do not.
If one is convinced that the current system works well, that is an argument for not changing it, not for some "neither fish nor fowl" graft onto the present system.
If one wants a constitutional system which expresses a new vision of Australia, then an elected President is the way to go. Which is what the people of Australia clearly believe and which is how they are going to vote. Good on them.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment