Republic debate Republic: why we said 'Yes, and more!'
On 6 November, the referendum for a Republic went down to heavy defeat. The task now for the left are to hold Labor leader Kim Beazley to his promise that the next Labor government will hold a further referendum, with wider democratic choice on what sort of republic, and to press the case for an authentically democratic republic in place of Malcolm Turnbull's 'minimal' version, under which, as the official Yes leaflets said, the way Australia was governed would remain essentially the same.
What judgement can we make now on the varied attitudes taken by the left to the referendum?
Some (see Marcus Larsen's letter, below) argued that the expression of preference for a republic over a monarchy was, in itself, without content and 'politically empty'. Pinochet's Chile was a 'republic' but obviously worse than the constitutional monarchy in Britain and Australia in 1974. Curiously, they then undermined their own argument by saying that, 'the question on 6 November is not 'do you prefer a republic to a monarchy?' We would have little choice but to vote yes to this question'. The actual question on 6 November was whether to vote yes or no to the 'minimalist' republic, where the current reserve powers of the Governor General would be transferred to a president appointed by parliament. It was hardly an inspiring change, but the minimalist republic (unlike Pinochet's Chile) would not be worse than the status quo. The consistent conclusion would be to vote yes. .
Instead Marcus Larsen and his comrades proposed a boycott modelled on the 1982 Tasmanian referendum on the choice of a site for a dam. Then the Tasmanian Wilderness Society urged electors wrote 'No dams' on their ballot paper, instead of selecting one of the dam sites proposed by the government. By analogy, Marcus Larsen wrote 'Democratic republic' on his ballot paper instead of choosing between the monarchy and a 'royal' president - Marcus wants a republic with no head of state. .
In principle, Marcus has a case. Unfortunately, however, there is a glaring difference in the likely response to the two boycotts. In Tasmania in 1982, 38% of electors spoilt their paper in the manner indicated by the Wilderness Society. How many Australian electors on 6 November 1999 spoiled their paper in the manner indicated by Marcus? Was it conceivably enough to make their choice a public political demonstration rather than a private protest for their own private satisfaction? .
The ISO took the exact opposite approach to Marcus. Whereas Marcus seemed unconcerned by the lack of any support for his position, the ISO strove for instant popularity. The ISO advocated a no vote and 'Stuff the bosses' republic' was their slogan. (This was the ISO's 'class' version of the official No campaign slogan, 'No to the politicians' republic'). Unlike other No-voting republicans, the ISO didn't even propose voting no as a tactic to achieve a directly elected president. The ISO expressed no positive aim at all - just no to this and stuff that. .
The DSP position was somewhere in between Marcus and the ISO. They wanted a republic, but not the 'safe' republic promised by the official Yes campaign. Therefore they advocated voting yes to the republic, but writing 'elected by the people' on the ballot paper. This was still a valid vote. The DSP therefore endorsed the popular desire for a directly elected president, but pointed out that voting no would only preserve the monarchy and delay for some time the introduction of any sort of republic. .
The 'Yes and more' campaign advocated a similar course of action to the DSP, but their case was better argued, and we in Workers' Liberty supported their general approach, as did the CFMEU (in contrast to the official ACTU position, uncritically pro-Turnbull). Their starting point was the powers of the head of state rather than the method of selection. .
Instead of seeking to abolish the position altogether, they argued that the position should be ceremonial rather than executive. They therefore proposed constitutional amendments to specify that the head of state does not command the armed forces, is not a member of the cabinet and cannot dismiss a prime minister who has the confidence of the lower house. They still favoured direct election as the method of choosing this ceremonial style president. However, they argued that direct election is not the issue in the referendum, because the powers of the president have not been codified. .
They therefore advocated voting yes to the republic and writing 'and more' on the ballot paper, to identify with the demand for democratic reform of the constitution that goes well beyond merely removing the anachronism of the British monarch being the Australian head of state. .
Letter: Neither Queen nor President!
Do we really prefer a royal president to the present system? In what way is this a step forward for democracy, even bourgeois democracy, let alone a step forward for the working class onto the political stage?
If we merely say 'we prefer a republic to a monarchy' we are completely removing all content from the debate. Pinochet's Chile was a republic, but I think that comrades would agree that the UK or Australia in 1974 were more 'democratic' countries, even though they were/are monarchies.
Furthermore, the question on 6 November is not 'do you prefer a republic to a monarchy?' We would have little choice but to vote yes to this question. However, we are being offered a particular form of republic - in the words of Marx - a monarchial presidency. The proposed law will explicitly refer to a 'continuation of royal prerogative in the president'.
In this referendum, consistent democrats and proletarian republicans must find a way to make their impact. I am suggesting a boycott similar to the boycott of the 1982 Tasmanian referendum on damming the Franklin river. 38% of people wrote 'no dams' on the ballot paper and did not vote yes or no. This is the minimum we can do. If all those who wanted a republic, but not what was on offer, spoiled their ballot papers in this way, what an impact it would make. It would also go some way to beginning an argument about presidentialism, which everyone (particularly the DSP) is just assuming we 'need'. We need no president. Voting yes, and limply saying can we have some more please, is submerging your vote with the Peter Costellos and Bob Hawkes and the Australian Republican Movement. Where is the independent expression of working class politics?
A programme for a proletarian republic is not simply 'more' than what we are being offered next week. It is the proletarian antipode to the ARM's minimal constitutionalism. We are republicans, not constitutionalists. By boycotting, as actively as we can, on 6 November we begin the process of reclaiming republicanism for the working class. We cease being sterile and passive bystanders watching as the bourgeoisie go about their business of politics.