A republic of ambivalence

WHEN we sit down to watch the royal wedding we'll be able to cast a discerning eye over our head of state and all her likely successors. At the altar and in the pews there'll be a dozen or more contenders who could become our next head of state. Well, not so much contenders but designates, patiently waiting their turn.

We are reasonably certain our next head of state will be a man. But in the unlikely event that the next four in line (princes Charles, William, Harry and Andrew) get together after the wedding and decide to convert to Catholicism, they will be out of contention, leaving Princess Beatrice to be queen.

It is worth pondering that no matter who among the royal family marries, divorces, procreates, dies or converts, we can be sure our next head of state won't be a Catholic or be married to one. It is all ordained in laws dating back to the 1700s.

Likewise, the British monarch cannot be someone born out of wedlock. If William ever discovers he has an illegitimate older brother, he needn't worry about falling back a spot in the line of succession. And even if he'd had a legitimate elder sister, her gender would have seen her drop behind him in the line. We know our next head of state will not be selected according to merit or achievement but rather will inherit the job through family connections.

This is the incongruity of the monarchy; as silly in England as it is here. And it is why the jingoistic campaigning from many Australian republicans over the years about how we need to have "one of us" as head of state misses the main point.

We have a system of government built on democracy, merit and equality under the law. Our system vests ultimate power in the ballot box and we have laws, tribunals, practices and societal norms that tell us we must not discriminate against people based on race, creed or gender. We expect, and our laws demand, that people should be given employment or preference on merit, not through nepotism.

Yet at the pinnacle of our system we have a process for choosing and maintaining a head of

state that directly contradicts, and therefore undermines, all these ideals and aspirations. When you consider what our democracy stands for and then consider how the monarchy functions, the overt contradiction is an irreconcilable paradox.

The Australian republican debate has gone into hibernation since the defeat of the 1999 referendum. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is a republican and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is a monarchist.

But this point of stark disagreement seldom matters. Gillard has adopted the same formulation as former Australian Republican Movement chief and former Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull; that the time to revive the debate is after the reign of the Queen.

Given the popularity of Queen Elizabeth, and the unpopularity of her immediate successor, Prince Charles, this seems, on the face of it, to be a sensible political accommodation. Besides, the Gillard government hardly needs any new political battles, especially one such as the republic which is removed from the everyday concerns of working families.

However there is an inherent danger in linking the debate to issues of contemporary popularity, and the royal wedding throws a spotlight on that risk. Apart from his movie star looks and celebrity status, Prince William shows a dignity and charm that is recognisable to even the most cynical republican.

Whether his father precedes him as monarch or not, a decline in popularity for the British royals cannot be presumed.

Anyway, it is counter-instinctive for republicans to pin their hopes on such a decline. The republican argument should not be influenced by the popularity of the royals but the substance of their role.

The decline in support for an Australian republic detected by today's Newspoll -- down to 41 per cent from a 1994 peak of 51 per cent -- is perhaps explained by a number of factors such as an improvement of regard for the royals, the absence of the issue from public debate and our pre-occupation with seemingly more pressing challenges such as economic recovery and climate change. But perhaps it is also a reflection of the superficial foundation on which the republican argument has been based.

Instead of resenting that the Queen is British, Australian republicans should focus on how her position is undemocratic and discriminatory, and therefore at odds with the system for which she is the symbolic head, and over which she holds some vested powers. This is not an argument to be put on ice for a few years, it needs constant advocacy.

Australian Republican Movement chairman Michael Keating is fighting a losing battle. He says the movement is aware of strong ideological support from MPs across all parties but he is constantly frustrated about getting any of them to take up the debate.

"It is bizarre that our politicians just want to concentrate on a handful of issues," he says. "We don't want a republican debate instead of dealing with other issues, we think it can be considered at the same time. There will always be other issues, so to use them as an excuse is a cop-out."

Keating says the movement does concentrate on matters of substance, arguing the constitution is "broken because at its apex is a hereditary monarch, when it is the people who should be sovereign. We say we are a country devoted to equality and a fair go, so that sense should also apply to our head of state".

The movement holds out some hope that the Greens will advance the agenda through a private members bill to force a plebiscite at the next election. That the only hope rests with the Greens just goes to show what a marginalised issue the republic has become.