”Why would you put up with an unelected leader who lives just about as far away from your country as you can get?”
A lot of New Zealanders ask the same question.
One good answer lies in what’s happening in the USA.
Our head of state doesn’t have a lot of power in practice, and while our Prime Minister might like to make a few executive orders the way Trump does, he can’t.
Of course it is possible to have a republic with a president who doesn’t have the powers the USA one does but given a choice between the way their republic works, I’d much prefer our constitutional monarchy.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
One good answer lies in what’s happening in the USA.
Our head of state doesn’t have a lot of power in practice, and while our Prime Minister might like to make a few executive orders the way Trump does, he can’t.
Of course it is possible to have a republic with a president who doesn’t have the powers the USA one does but given a choice between the way their republic works, I’d much prefer our constitutional monarchy.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
12 comments:
Meanwhile we slow march towards Maori Apartheid through the Maorification of New Zealand...
Now it's infecting our professional regulatory bodies and Maori Co-Governance is still a thing, where next ?
Monarchy is based on the assumption that certain bloodlines are inherently superior to the rest. That's why the monarch is above the law. This is clearly incompatible with the notion of equality before the law which is an assumption of democracy.
Monarchy belongs to the mindset of the past.
I disagree with barend. The monarchy is all about history and tradition. Queen Elizabeth lived a life of service to others and worked up until she died, while others retire in their 60s. . They do so much good for society and run numerous charities and bring in billions of pounds in tourism money. Also, what a dull grey world it would be without a bit of glam.
Dennis the Peasant - "Strange women laying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government"
To Ele and all others - keep in mind the History of The English Monarchy and how many ' Kings lost their heads '.
With the current ' bottom on the throne ', during his early years 20 + he was a prolific writer of letters to The Editors of English newspaper, on varied subjects (more on what had either been printed in a paper and or opined elsewhere) - presenting ' views' that were not shared by the many.
One favorite topic was on matters ' green '. Based on His work at Highgrove.
My source indicates that Prime Minister's of the time "cringed when such missives appeared" and so did Father - Duke of Edinburgh.
Ele, also keep in mind when QE II died, many across the UK made it very clear that once Crowned - " He was not my King ".
A sentiment that still lingers today.
In his 2020 book Human Diversity: the Biology of Gender, Race and Class, Charles Murray argues that there is a genetic factor.
e: Barrie above, yes, there is a genetic factor in the sense of assortative mating within narrowly defined social groups. To the point where it may become inbreeding - the Spanish Habsburg line came to an end in 1700 with the death of the sickly and malformed Philip II who exhibited many traits that had arisen from inbreeding.
But when the rules are relaxed about whom royals can marry, you may end up with very 'common' riffraff such as Meghan Markle, and it's goodbye to any semblance of superiority genetic or otherwise.
Dear B.V. Re your comment " rules are relaxed about whom Royals can marry " and your view of Ms. Markle, does the same comment also apply to Edward the 8th and Wallace Simpson, a Socialite American, who had been married twice, prior to meeting Prince Edward?
Also a marriage that drove both from England - can I say ditto Harry & Meghan?
B.V many will agree with statement re Markle but it is interesting just how the British tabloids present column inches on her and her activities. American Media has 'turned the light down somewhat'.
Under the Westminster model we have signed up to, the Sovereign is obliged to act on the advice proffered by his Prime Minister, so the whole discussion of blood lines and elitism is redundant. Any idiot could do the job. In New Zealand the work is all done by the Governor-General, appointed by the Sovereign, again on the advice of the Prime minister. No prior experience required. How many readers could actually name the current GG? So how big a deal would it be to cut the British monarch out of the loop and let the buck stop with the Governor-General. Replace all references in law to the "Crown" to something generic like "The People"and rebrand the office as "The Head of State". Bingo - instant Republic. I bet nobody would even notice things had changed until a different face appeared on the bank notes. But who uses cash these days anyway?
You're right, Jonesy, any idiot could do the job. So why have a monarch half a world away on an income that most of us could only dream about? But you can't toss the monarchy out and retain the G-G as his/her specific function is to represent the monarch. Ask any Australian over the age of 60 about how the G-G can dissolve democratically elected governments.
Anonymous above, ***bloody oath*** do I apply same to Edward and Mrs Simpson.
I repeat, monarchy is part of yesteryear's mindset.
The story goes that a Scandinavian king was being interviewed. His interviewer asked ‘What do you say your main job is?’ The king replied, ‘To protect my people from their politicians’. Ah well, we can only wish.
Sorry to be pedantic Barend but there's no such thing as a democratically elected Government.
That's because under the Westminster model, the democratic process requires New Zealanders to vote not for a Government, but for a constituency MP, and for a party. The individual MPs who emerge from that process then sort out between themselves who is going to form the Government.
It's the Governor-General's constitutional role to confirm that decision by appointing as his or her Prime Minister an MP who can command a majority in the House of Representatives. That occurs without any further reference to the voters.
As far as dismissing a Government is concerned, under the same unwritten reserve powers that allow the appointment of a PM, the G-G has the power to unilaterally dismiss that PM and call fresh elections if it becomes clear the PM can no longer command a majority in Parliament but refuses to resign.
That has never happened in New Zealand, but as Barend points out, it has occurred in Australia. Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam relied on the same unwritten reserve powers as we adhere to in New Zealand, so that is arguably good precedent for any New Zealand G-G facing the issue. It's worth noting that Whitlam lost the ensuing election, confirming Kerr's judgement.
The political firestorm that accompanied Kerr's actions demonstrates why the rules surrounding the removal of a government need to be set out clearly and in writing. Kerr stuck by the conventions. But as Donald Trump has shown, a determined despot cares nothing for tradition, protocol or convention.
Accordingly, it's time the Constitution Act was extended to codify the G-G's Powers. That would logically be part of the transition to the new Republic.
Post a Comment