Is it undemocratic to swear allegiance to King Charles? Bloody oath!

How should we, as Australians, respond to the invitation from Lambeth Palace to all in Britain and its “realms” to swear allegiance to King Charles III at his coronation on Saturday? Might a collective oath lift our hearts and unify us, as Australian Monarchist League Chairman Eric Abetz suggested? “A way of expressing our inclusion in what is a very historic moment.” A great worldwide shout-out to the King. What could possibly be wrong with that? From the perspective of democracy, everything, as it happens.

The coronation oath: great worldwide shout-out to the King, or undemocratic ritual?Credit: AP

You don’t need to be a republican to believe in democracy. Indeed, Australian monarchists routinely declare that Australia’s constitutional monarchy is fundamentally compatible with its democratic constitution. Australia’s republicans are democrats, too. They see the achievement of a republic as the completion of Australia’s long history of democratic institution-building. Nobody seriously wants a king with the power to override the people’s representatives in Australia’s parliaments. In the debate surrounding the coronation oath, no one is suggesting that it should convey anything of the kind.

But what is at issue is democracy. Throughout history, an oath of allegiance has served as a declaration of obedience. It is a promise on the part of a person to set aside their own judgment, subordinating their own reasons and choices to the person who receives the oath. What else might “allegiance” mean? Historically, its expression has been inseparably tied to promises to fight on behalf of the sovereign against the sovereign’s enemies.

But who is the sovereign in a democracy? It is the people – the citizens – who express their self-rule through their democratic institutions. They choose their government through the mechanism of elections. Elections require discussion and debate among the citizens, reflection on alternative policies and alternative candidates, freedom of choice at the ballot box, not unquestioning “allegiance” to a superordinate unelected authority.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets King Charles III at Buckingham Palace ahead of the coronation.Credit: AP

Rituals like the proposed oath are not intended to be neutral in their effect. They are meant to be powerful, to stir collective emotion, to associate an idea of national identity with the office of a person.

We should be affirming our democracy, celebrating our democratic system, not going along with rituals that symbolise the opposite. However imperfect in practice, democracy gives institutional shape to individual preferences and values, and treats our varied and sometimes conflicting views as equally worthy of respect.

These principles apply every bit as much to our elected representatives, including the prime minister. Members of the Commonwealth Parliament have no choice but to swear allegiance to the monarch (Queen Victoria’s “heirs and successors”). The Australian Constitution requires it, and they cannot take their seats without doing so. But, in NSW, MPs may now choose to pledge their “loyalty to Australia and to the people of New South Wales” (adding “Under God”, if they wish) as an alternative to the traditional oath.

Swearing the oath at Saturday’s coronation is meant to be similarly voluntary; it is styled as an “invitation”, not an order or request. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will face criticism whether he participates or abstains, but he should ask himself – perhaps a little more searchingly than he appears to have done – whether, as a self-declared republican, swearing allegiance to a hereditary head of state sends the appropriate message. No one seriously believes that Albanese intends to subordinate himself or his government to the King. But by swearing, he will be repeating and thereby affirming an undemocratic principle, one that conflicts with Australia’s practice.

If none of this bothers you, and the proposed public oath is just a bit of harmless nonsense, there’s the matter of timing. Australians who participate will find themselves shouting out into the night air, maybe disturbing their non-observant neighbours and waking their children, at the moment in London’s early-afternoon when the televised ceremony announces that the King has been crowned. How unifying will that be?

Whatever way you look at it, the proposed “chorus of millions of voices” is undemocratic, historically troubling, potentially divisive, and – at the very least – likely to be unachievable.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.