17
Republic debate sparks push for local power reform (independentaustralia.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A growing chorus is calling for Australia’s republic conversation to focus less on symbolism and more on empowering local communities through real structural reform, writes Kaijin Solo.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'll take every opportunity I can to say this, but we all need to take note of what happened when America overthrew the monarchy. A single system of power leaves us vulnerable to populism, and enables the politicization of the courts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Becoming a republic does not necessitate switching to a presidential system or establishing a politicised constitution (which is, in turn, part of what led to America's activist judiciary).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nonsense. There is no configuration of state and legislative body that makes any country automatically safe from manipulation by state capturing billionaires or Russian interference. There is a continuous work of education around this that needs doing all the time, and doing it is the only way we won't be brought down. The monarchy is pretty useless and irrelevant in this. Did they stop the UK from being taken out of the EU by far right populists? You know they did not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Education is one factor. A diversity of power structures is another. America wouldn't be in the state it was if the monarchy needed to approve supreme court appointments.

    The monarchy didn't stop the UK from being taken out of the EU, that was a referendum and they'd bring out the guillotines of the monarchs tried to override that. The monarchy doesn't need to actually intervene to be effective at maintaining stability, the threat of intervention is enough to keep the far-right from trying to overthrow or corrupt elections.

    I think the UK system of the hereditary lords in the house of lords is better than the monarchy. A inherited position sitting at the back of democracy that can delay legislation should it be the result of blatant self-interest or populism. The house of lords is closer to a group of average upper class people with clear limits on their role.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent