Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, and Peter FitzSimons all fancy themselves Australia’s next king. Not as a constitutional monarch with limited power or a prime minister bound by the grace of his ministers, but an absolute monarch from Europe’s faded realms where they could rule without the pesky interference of the plebs. If they cannot achieve it through a republic, these same characters will force the issue by subverting our democracy into a climate-flavoured Communist nightmare aided and abetted by COVID.
Only a foolish nation would grant the wish of partisan egomaniacs who swear at those beneath their feet. Their push for Australia to become a republic is about the theft of power from the people by preying on political naivety. Predictably, those who are rejected by politics often plot to destroy the system, mistakenly believing that the scaffolding is at fault rather than their character.
This on-again-off-again flirtation with an Australian republic is a symptom of a wider problem: understanding what motivates power. Marxist school teachers have no interest in educating our kids about the preservation of liberty, mostly because they intend to dismantle it one hashtag at a time with their freshly hatched child soldiers. If Australians cannot see what their current political system protects, the nation is going to be swindled away by the first charismatic voice. (Sit down, Paul Keating. No one was talking about you.)
At the outset, humans were given a problem. We pool resources in large groups to survive. Keeping peace between competing individuals requires a system of law. This organisation necessitates a decision making leader. To enforce the law requires power. Inequality of power facilitates jealously and fatal internal conflict. The management of power is therefore a constant across time and geography.
Ideologically, this ‘state power’ is meant to work for the greater good, but invariably it is administered by individuals who can never rid themselves of personal motivation, even if it is well-meaning. Often society clusters leaders into senates or committees to divide responsibility, but the essence of the problem remains with fresh complexity reducing the effectiveness of power. The United Nations specialises in this kind of infinite division of unenforceable power – both wishing to rule the world and descending into a sandpit for dictators.
What on Earth does civilisation do? Power is the soul of human society – and its combustible flaw. Like water, we need it, but too much drowns us. We have to sail on it, rather than trying to consume it. Many of the greatest minds have laboured over the caging of power. From Machiavelli to Mill, we know there is no perfect system of government. All we can do is propose a best fit that understands our worst habits and takes a wager with our virtue.
It is all too easy for world leaders of differing political views to clump together, propping each other up under the veil of consensus. Nationwide lockdowns might be advantageous for those wishing to cling on to power, but they are devastating for the masses. It is not an accident that they are cheered on by leaders in precarious positions – such as Jacinda Ardern who had to haggle her way into New Zealand’s prime minstership, and is on the blocks as we speak
The motivation that lurks behind power is the secret to its moderation. Understanding of the risk versus reward of the individual holding it reveals how easily they can be corrupted by that power. Only one political structure in human history has found a way to install a glass ceiling over would-be dictators. It was an evolutionary accident, not a grand design, and certainly not something anyone in possession of power would willingly choose. I speak of the constitutional monarchies, in particular, the type forged by England in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution and gifted to Australia upon birth.
Australia’s constitutional monarchy is also a ‘crowned republic’. We enjoy a ‘republic with benefits’ situation in which we embrace all the trappings of republican independence with a choker collar tied around our politicians’ neck, allowing the people to yank them back into line if they start barking at us. It is no surprise that politicians despise this limitation on their power, but who actually limits the power of the Prime Minister?
It sounds like the Crown limits the power of a Prime Minister, but the Crown’s power is ultimately controlled by something far greater – the will of the people. The Crown is merely a mechanism by which this balance of authority is maintained. Tribes, absolute monarchies, dictatorships, and republics share the same problem – power is condensed into a single person be they a warlord, king, comrade or president. Constitutional monarchies like ours, trap the Crown and parliament in a Catch22, unable to coerce each other, while the people reign above them as the true inheritors of the nation.
‘Reserve powers’ allow the Crown to sack a government however they have no control over who is elected in their place. Exercising this power is not something to be done lightly. If the monarch sacks a popular government, the monarchy may be dissolved by the returned parliament upon the people’s request. A similar fate awaits if they fail to act when asked. The motivation of this power sits firmly with the mood of the people, not the ambition of the monarch, who risks injuring themselves. It is the breadth of the Crown’s wealth, position, and social position which keeps them honest. In essence, to corrupt the Crown, you would have to offer a king’s ransom.
The allure of a republic is the promise of power for the people – but who really ends up with the power?
True republics elect individuals to this extraordinary position of responsibility. Think how safe you’d feel with President Eddie Obeid overseeing Prime Minister Kristina Keneally… To corrupt the Crown’s replacement is easy, which is why it happens like clockwork across the world’s republics. They are either partisan, paid off, or intimidated into supporting tyrannical regimes.
But – but – America!
Such go the last desperate wails of Australia’s republicans, who lust after a system that has seen two bloody civil wars and is approaching a third because the resolution of political division is not properly controlled. America is the most stable expression of the most reliable type of republic, and yet its export into other nations is almost uniformly a failure – quickly stripped, usurped, and abused by Marxist regimes. How many African nations, drunk on the Utopian promise of liberation, cast off their capitalist democracies in favour of republics? Most are queued at Europe’s gates, trying to claw their way back into the system they shunned.
America’s republic is a special case that survives on a mix of law and propaganda. Their cherished ‘American Dream’ of capitalist-prosperity and a devotion to absolute liberty (with an armed people’s militia) keeps politicians in check. The instant a percentage of the nation is brainwashed into a culture of victimhood and Marxism, it begins to collapse.
Australia’s system is stronger than America’s. The problem is that the human race is trapped in a constant cycle of needing to be ruled and despising those who rule. Violence is the natural end of all politics. Human ambition is not a thing that can be trusted for more than a moment and, though we temper civilisation with philosophy, religion, and works of immense artistic beauty – the story of our history is collapse. Modern cities dig their roots into the bones of corpse-empires to remind us that our demise is inevitable.
There is no denying that Prince Charles has bought into the same propaganda as Greta Thunberg but crucially, unlike a president, he cannot inflict his elitist whims on the public. That decision, under a constitutional monarchy, remains firmly under our control.
Remember, the strength of your constitution is meaningless if you do not have a system to protect it. Be careful where you place the Crown.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.