From the Waikato Times Friday October 16 2009

Heads you lose with monarchy and private members.

Nandor Tanczos

I would love us to become a republic
Watching some historical films about the English monarchy and the parasites that surround them has re-inspired a powerful republican sentiment in me.
It is not that I dislike the Windsors, but they are the result of more than a thousand years of in-breeding and (sometimes fatally) hostile family dynamics.
Who on earth would want them as our Head of State?
If Green MP Keith Locke gets his way we will all get a chance to vote on it.
His private member's bill - the Head of State Referenda Bill - is set to be debated in Parliament, and if it passes, would force a public referendum to decide between three options for our Head of State: keeping the Queen; someone elected by the people; or someone elected by 75 per cent of Parliament.
If no option gets more than 50 per cent of the vote, a second (run-off) referendum will be held featuring only the two most popular options.
I don't want the bill to pass.   I do very much want it to pass a first reading and go to select committee.
The people of New Zealand deserve an opportunity to have a say on whether we want royals or not, and the select committee public process would be a good start.
In addition it would start a national debate in a constitutionally illiterate nation.
That status is not surprising since most schools don't teach civics education or even much New Zealand history, but it is shameful.
For all that New Zealand will not, and should not, make such an important constitutional change by way of a private member's bill.
Mr Locke is well-intentioned but his bill is deeply flawed.   It is a hasty fix - like slappling a plaster on an acid burn.
What we need is a slower and more considered debate, because the issue goes well beyond  whose face is on the coins.
The Queen (acting through the Governor-General) can dissolve Parliament or refuse assent to legislation, for example, but she does not act because to do so would put her position in jeopardy.
An elected President might feel that they have a democratic mandate to use those powers, causing a huge shift in our careful constitutional balancing act.
More importantly, it is the constitutional thinking that underpins the monarchy that needs challenging - the peculiar British notion of the indivisibility of sovereignty.
Many nations recognise that different functions of sovereignty can be exercised in different places - hence the sovereign status of various Indian nations as indigenous people, and of individual states in the US, or the very localised decision making in Swiss cantons.
This is what the Treaty of Waitangi promises in Article 2 - the tino rangatiratanga (autonomy) of hapu.
Mr Locke's bill says that Treaty obligations would remain unchanged, but this ignores the bigger possibility to develop a constitution that truly reflects the partnership foreseen in the Treaty and our place in the Pacific Triangle.
The highly centralised notions of power that dominate New Zealand political thinking are great for the rich and powerful but act against the interests of both Maori and Pakeha communities striving to maintain social and ecological stability in the face of the corporate steamroller.
Just ask the people trying to stop ironsand mining or electricity transmission lines..
David Nielsen, in the Radical Rethink lecture series run by Continueing Education at Waikato University, spoke about possible responses to our environmental and social problems, and referred to the need for a "cosmopolitan democracy" that recognises and empowers different levels of governance at a global, regional, national and local level, but whose fundamental principle was based on supporting and encouraging local autonomy.
That is where we need to take the republican debate, in my view.
Swapping the Queen for some other toff means nothing to me.

Mr Tanczos is speaking at the Radical Rethink lecture series on October 27 at 6:30pm, AG30, Waikato University, Gate 8.

Nandor Tanczos is a green activist, educator and writer based in the Waikato.
 

Comment

I would love us to become a republic".
Wishful thinking will not create a republic.   Success in the struggle against the monarchy will require commitment and sacrifice.

"Watching some historical films about the English monarchy and the parasites that surround them has re-inspired a powerful republican sentiment in me."
"Historical films about the English monarchy" may inspire sentiments of one sort or another (largely negative), but they do not provide an adequate basis for  the republican movement  in Aotearoa.   Our republicanism must be more than a reaction against British rule and the degenerate state of the British monarchy.  It must be an expression of the most fundamental values of our people and our culture.  Having said that, it is good that Nandor's "powerful republican sentiment", presumably in abeyance while he was sworn in allegiance to the Queen, has re-surfaced now that he is no longer a Member of Parliament.

It is not that I dislike the Windsors, but they are the result of more than a thousand years of in-breeding and (sometimes fatally) hostile family dynamics.
The claim of in-breeding and "hostile family dynamics" may or may not be true, but it is not the point.   The case for republicanism is much larger than the case against the Windsors.

Who on earth would want them as our Head of State?
Good question, to which the answer would surely be "all of those who wish New Zealand to remain within the orbit of the Anglo-American imperial system" which includes most Members of Parliament, the Monarchist League, the Victoria League, the military forces, the Security Intelligence Service and that privileged class of largely English descent who constitute what we can call the colonial aristocracy.

I don't want the bill to pass.
Nandor does not want the bill to pass, because he fears it would lock in place a "republican" constitution which would not be suffiiciently different to the present monarchical system.   In that respect he shows himself to be well meaning, but lacking faith.   In reality, no decision of Parliament can be imposed upon an unwilling people in perpetuity.

 I do very much want it to pass a first reading and go to select committee.
Nandor wants the bill to go to a select committee hearing because he believes that a Parliamentary select committee is a "good" place in which to commence the process of constitutional reform.   But a true republic of Aotearoa cannot be established by a process of "submission" to the political institutions of the British crown;  it can only come into being when the people proudly and freely assert their sovereignty under God.

The people of New Zealand deserve an opportunity to have a say on whether we want royals or not, and the select committee public process would be a good start.
When Nandor says that "the people of New Zealand deserve an opportunity to have a say" he is condescending.   The people of Aotearoa have only ever deserved, and only ever obtained, that for which they have been willing to fight as a people against the British crown.   And once we have collectively rejected the pretentious claim of the British monarchy to exercise sovereignty over our land and our people, we will not need to make submissions to a Parliamentary select committee on the question of "whether we want the royals or not".

For all that New Zealand will not, and should not, make such an important constitutional change by way of a private member's bill.
The first requirement for any constructive constitutional debate is the honest and unambiguous definition of terms..  Nandor should know that Parliament is not New Zealand, and New Zealand is not Parliament.  Only Parliament can make "change by way of a private member's bill".    "New Zealand" as a whole will either agree with or object to the decisions of Parliament on constitutional issues, as on any other matter.

Mr Locke is well-intentioned but his bill is deeply flawed.   It is a hasty fix - like slappling a plaster on an acid burn.
Nandor is right to say that a quick fix transformation from monarchy to republic would not address, let alone correct, the fundamental evil inherent in the monarchical system.   A republic of the sort envisaged by Keith Locke could, and probably would, retain the essentially amoral and colonialist character of the present monarchist regime.   The "United Future" Leader Peter Dunne, the Member of Parliament who best epitomises the corruption, opportunism and treachery of the regime, is advocating  exactly that kind of republic.

What we need is a slower and more considered debate, because the issue goes well beyond  whose face is on the coins.
True, and I personally believe that the debate will be slow, slower even than Nandor might wish for, in part because the regime will not willingly accede to a deep and broad-ranging debate on our basic constitutional arrangements.

An elected President might feel that they have a democratic mandate to use those powers, causing a huge shift in our careful constitutional balancing act.
A non-executive republican Head of State would have one duty: to defend the people and the constitution against the excesses or abuses of government power.   That is a duty which the present Head of State, Queen Elizabeth, is actually required to forsake.   Therefore, in a properly constituted republic, an elected President with appropriate powers would reduce the scope  for the egregious abuse of power.   The balance of powers will be enhanced, rather than diminished, through the office of an elected president.

More importantly, it is the constitutional thinking that underpins the monarchy that needs challenging - the peculiar British notion of the indivisibility of sovereignty.
The indivisibility of sovereignty is not a peculiarly British idea - it is the fundamental premise of every nation state.    Nandor is confusing the division of sovereignty with the division of powers.

Many nations recognise that different functions of sovereignty can be exercised in different places - hence the sovereign status of various Indian nations as indigenous people, and of individual states in the US, or the very localised decision making in Swiss cantons.
These are examples of the division of powers.  In each of the above cases, the constitution is sovereign, and various communities exercise autonomy as provided for in the constitution.

This is what the Treaty of Waitangi promises in Article 2 - the tino rangatiratanga (autonomy) of hapu.
Mr Locke's bill says that Treaty obligations would remain unchanged, but this ignores the bigger possibility to develop a constitution that truly reflects the partnership foreseen in the Treaty and our place in the Pacific Triangle.
Despite what Nandor and others may say, the Treaty of Waitangi only has sense and purpose within the context of a race-based system.   And the people  of  Aotearoa must implicitly reject the race-based political and social order established by the British colonial regime.   Our constitution can provide for autonomous communities, but those provisions must be intrinsic to the constitution, and be available to all the people of the motu.   In that way every citizen will see the principle of autonomy as something to be defended as one of his or her own fundamental constitutional rights, and not as a privilege accorded to Maori alone.   The Treaty must go, because it is not, and never has been, a sufficient guarantee of the rights of any of our people, and if retained in any form whatsoever it would be a source of perpetual dissension.

The highly centralised notions of power that dominate New Zealand political thinking are great for the rich and powerful but act against the interests of both Maori and Pakeha communities striving to maintain social and ecological stability in the face of the corporate steamroller.
Just ask the people trying to stop ironsand mining or electricity transmission lines.
The simple solution to that problem is a constitution which guarantees the rights of the people, and provides for the protection of the natural environment, against the power of the state and the corporations.

David Nielsen, in the Radical Rethink lecture series run by Continueing Education at Waikato University, spoke about possible responses to our environmental and social problems, and referred to the need for a "cosmopolitan democracy" that recognises and empowers different levels of governance at a global, regional, national and local level, but whose fundamental principle was based on supporting and encouraging local autonomy.
That is where we need to take the republican debate, in my view.
Swapping the Queen for some other toff means nothing to me.
Nandor is  right.  The essence of a republic is not a President, but the constitution.  And the formation of a republican constitution for Aotearoa cannot be entrusted to those politicians who have spent their lives in the service of  the colonial regime.