Republic: the struggle will continue

The 54.7 percent "NO" vote in last Saturday's republic referendum was a 
set-back for the Australian nation and the result of cynical manipulation 
and opportunism by those political forces bent on chaining Australia to its 
colonial past. John Howard and the economically powerful pro-monarchist 
lobby are a backward minority fearful of any change that may threaten the 
status quo, even those relatively minor changes proposed in the 
referendum's republican model.

The outcome of the referendum should not be seen as an indication that the 
majority of Australians are opposed to Australia becoming a republic or are 
against constitutional reforms.

On the contrary, the result reflects the way in which the campaign was 
conducted and peoples' feelings of disillusionment and anger with the 
political process and politicians. Try as he might, Prime Minister John 
Howard will not be able to bury the issue or gag those who want change.

The result means that the Queen (or King Charles) of England will be 
Australia's head of state for some years to come, despite only a small 
percentage of the population supporting the retention of this relic of our 
colonial past.

A Newspoll survey last week put support for the monarchy as low as nine 
percent.

The monarchists, who played a high-media profile role in the campaigning 
for the NO vote, made hardly any attempt to argue the merits of retaining 
the monarchy, mainly because there are none.

Instead, they waged a dishonest campaign against the model being put in the 
referendum, claiming to favour a directly elected President of Australia — 
a far cry from the born-to-rule foreign monarch that they wish to retain as 
head of state.

With the help of the mass media, the debate was diverted from the key 
question of whether Australia should become a republic to one of how the 
head of state would be chosen.

The monarchists unashamedly fostered and exploited the widely held, and 
incorrect, belief that a popularly elected Head of State would represent 
some counter to dishonest and discredited politicians.

In many respects the result was a vote of no confidence in Australia's 
political processes and the major parties.

The idea that the Prime Minister would be able to arbitrarily sack the 
President also met with strong opposition in the community.

Some of the largest majorities of NO votes were recorded in strongly 
working class electorates where the people are most disillusioned with 
government policies and cynical towards politicians.

The official voice of the YES vote, the Australian Republican Movement 
(ARM), failed to argue the case for the republic and for a YES vote.

Its leader Malcolm Turnbull, a rich banker and close associate of leading 
right-wing Labor politicians, did not instill confidence in people to 
support change. ARM was really part of the problem, not the solution.

The official Australian Electoral Commission pamphlet with the YES and NO 
cases did not present arguments for and against a republic. Instead it 
sloganised, with the likes of "When in doubt, throw it out. Vote `NO' to 
this republic." 

The Prime Minister's proposed preamble to the constitution went down with 
the republic but by a far larger majority — almost 61 percent.

The preamble was not only inadequate, but implicitly racist. It failed to 
recognise Australia as a multicultural or secular society, and on the 
question of Indigenous Australians it ignored the prior ownership of the 
land and resources by the Indigenous peoples.

There remains the necessity to raise questions such as a Bill of Rights, 
electoral reform and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 
land rights. And the people will take these up as part of the broader 
struggle for democratic, trade union and Indigenous rights and an 
independent and sovereign Australia.