In the first part of this paper, I will explain my reasons for holding the view that the Westminster system should be abandoned. This would involve the direct popular election of the executive government for a fixed term. ![]() I happen to believe that we can achieve the republican ideal only by replacing Westminster democracy with a system of representative government firmly grounded in the doctrine of the separation of powers, guaranteed fundamental freedoms and genuine federalism. I do so because I believe that on this issue the people are right and the politicians wrong. I want to take this opportunity to provoke this debate. But there is no better time to discuss this issue than the present. I am pessimistic about the prospects for such a debate as our political leaders seem to have no stomach for it. One thing, though, is certain: we will never find out what the people think on this issue unless there is a wider public debate in which the case for retaining the present system is weighed against alternative models including those based on direct popular election of governments. Then, again, they may be saying that they wish to elect directly a president even if it means changing the present system. These two objections presuppose that the people wish to preserve the Westminster system in its current form. The second objection is that a popularly elected president may receive a kind of legitimacy which may rival the authority of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. It is thought that the person who wins office through an electoral contest may lack the necessary distance from party politics to be a credible repository of these powers. Powers mainly concerned with the appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister and the dissolution of Parliament to be exercised in a non‑partisan way in accordance with constitutional conventions. The Westminster system requires certain reserve One is that such an election would politicise the office of the president. ![]() There are two main objections to a popularly elected president. This, in spite of the fact that fifty‑seven per cent actually favour the transition to a republic. The figures revealed by the latest opinion poll taken in Queensland indicates that a staggering eighty‑one percent of those questioned wish to elect directly the president and only nineteen per cent favoured the Prime Minister’s proposal to elect the president by two‑thirds majority of the two Houses of Parliament. This is in stark contrast to the almost universal conviction among politicians, academics and media commentators that a republican president should not be popularly elected. The second fact is that almost every opinion poll indicates that an overwhelming majority of Australians wish to elect directly their head of state if a republic is established. ![]() Monarchists argue that such a change will damage the system, no matter how we select the Queen’s replacement. According to the minimalist proposal, the only change from the monarchy will be that, instead of a foreign sovereign, we will have as our titular head ‘one of us’. The minimalists, such as the Prime Minister, propose to replace the monarch with a head of state chosen locally. The first fact is that the main protagonists, the minimalist republicans and the monarchists, have great faith in the Westminster system of government and wish to preserve it in this country. ![]() Anyone who has followed the republican debate cannot have failed to notice two intriguing facts. I believe that the debate that the Prime Minister ignited on 7 June has added significance to the issues which I propose to discuss today. I am speaking today just one week after the launch of a campaign to make Australia a republic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |