On the weekend the prime Minster announced the appointment of a new governor general for Australia. The new GG is has a military background, having served bravely during Vietnams war of national liberation. This choice is designed with the next election in mind. It will help erase the memory of the unfortunate Peter Hollingworth.
Some voices from the republican movement were heard to mention the possibility of opening up the system by which the GG is chosen. The issue of the head of state and the system of appointing on has been churning in my mind recently.
I actually prefer the title ‘commonwealth’ to republic. It sounds more egalitarian. Republic has a closer connection to democracy in the loosest sense of the word. I am opposed to a head of state being the representative of a monarch.
More importantly, I have some doubts about the idea of electing the head of state. I have grown to share the fear that a directly elected head of state would become a rival centre of power to the parliament. I like the idea that the effective head of state, the prime minister, has limits placed on his or her authority. These limits include the PM being elected by an electorate and by the authority to rule being given by other elected representatives whose electoral legitimacy is similar to his. I have little doubt that a directly elected head of state, especially if the contest was hard fought, would attempt to challenge the authority of parliamentary rule.
I don’t want to make a virtue of the parliamentary system. It works reasonably well, but there are many variants of a democratic system in the modern world. One could imagine a situation of political contestation where a president elected by a popular national mandate attempts to introduce an extension of democratic rule that will be opposed by parliament.
On the other hand, a parliamentary system does give the ruling party more authority than an individual candidate. Personally, I think that a political system where parties dominate individual candidates is better than one where the individual dominates the system. The parliamentary system, with a ‘minimalist’ head of state is preferable. However, a good parliamentary system requires a good party system. To have that, a modern democracy needs to have an active citizenry and state intervention to encourage the development of a healthy party system.
There is an alternative that I think warrants more serious consideration. Why do we need to have a head of state at all? I do not have legal training, but those who do know have suggested that we don’t need to have a head of state. It would be possible to appoint a council of ministers and invest them with the formal authority to create governments.
9:19:55 PM 
|
