The Not So Far Distant Day: The Inevitable Australian Republic
The Conservative Traditions Of Australian Republicanism
The Labor Tradition Of Australian Republicanism
The republican debate in Australia has been most intense in the1990s and, as the 2000 Olympics and the centenary of federationapproach, there is every reason and many a pretext for examiningAustralia's constitutional history and national symbols.
In 1996, all parties in the federal parliament broadly supporta referendum on the republic and it is likely that within 18 monthsdelegates will be chosen for a constitutional convention whichwill, amongst other issues, examine the possibility of a republic.
Some say that a republic is now inevitable, but such claims haveborne no fruit in the past.
In all that has been written and said on the republic since thedebate was on rekindled in the early 1990s with the formationof the Australian Republican Movement, the revival of pro nationalistsentiment in the Labor Party under Prime Minister Keating andthe work of the Republican Advisory Committee, the failure toexamine Australia's republican history has left a gap in contemporarydiscourse.
Indeed, the traditions of republican thought in Australia arenot well understood and are only infrequently acknowledged.
The most common image of republicanism in Australia is one inspiredby a predominantly nationalist, socialist and Labor led historicallegacy and this is sometimes misconceived as the only model ofrepublicanism that has had much bearing on Australia's past. However,there are other republican traditions of continuing relevancein Australian political thought, traditions which have yet tobe acknowledged by protagonists in the current debate.
There are three principal republican models - the English, Frenchand American, and each is relevant to both the conservative andLabor traditions of Australian republicanism.
The English model is one steeped in constitutionalism and therule of law. It is one which owes much to the classical modelencompassing a desire for balanced government, the separationof powers, the promotion of civic virtue and the resistance toabsolutism and arbitrary rule.
The French model is associated with more revolutionary images.In the Australian context this image carries more negative connotations.The monarchy has been seen as an antidote to such radicalism,as the bedrock of stable government and a bulwark against excess,undue experimentation and even social decay.
The American model, whilst deriving from a revolutionary past,owes its continuing currency to the enduring reconciliation offederalism with representative democracy, individualism and themarket economy. The influence of the American model in Australiais most pervasive and is reflected in our federal institutionsincluding our written constitution which divides powers and responsibilitiesbetween two levels of government.
The dominant Labor tradition of republicanism has mostly soughtto frame the issue of Australian national identity as a choicebetween independence and loyalty to the mother country. But theLabor tradition also contains sentiments and beliefs which havebeen forgotten or suppressed such as democracy and egalitarianism.The conservative tradition of republicanism has more closelyembraced the classical model of republicanism drawing on the Americanand English models. Championed in the nineteenth century by SirHenry Parkes, these traditions have led many of their adherentsto perceive the Australian Constitution as a republic in disguise. This is understandable as it stresses balanced government, gradualpolitical reform and is not anti-monarchical or anti-British.It is also inherently suspicious of executive power and favourableto checks and balances and the dispersal of power within a federalframework.
The failure to acknowledge or to give full weight to the diversityof Australia's republican antecedents has stultified and polariseddebate producing many unhelpful stereotypes and caricatures suchas:
Reflecting this narrowing in the debate, Australian conservativeshave perhaps invested too much of their democratic heritage inthe British monarchy, while the Labor Party has severed the connectionbetween republicanism and social democracy which was a part ofrepublicanism in the early years of the labour movement.
Since the formation of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM)in Sydney in July 1991 and the decision by the Australian LaborParty at its National Conference in Hobart two weeks earlier towork towards the declaration of an Australian republic in 2001,the issue of an Australian republic has been a prominent featureof political debate. In 1996, all major political parties withinthe Commonwealth Parliament are broadly supportive of a nationalreferendum on the question of a republic within the next threeyears. While the debate so far has been substantial, it is likelyto be eclipsed by the discussion which is yet to come. As thecentenary of Federation approaches, and the republican debateincreases in scope and intensity, it would seem appropriate toturn our eyes to the debates we cannot remember. In all that hasbeen written and said on the republic since 1991, little attentionhas been paid to the history of Australian republicanism. Australiapossesses a rich, sophisticated and varied history of debate onthe issue of a republic. It is this history which has the potentialto cast considerable light on the current republican debate andenrich our understanding of the traditions of Australian politicalthought. Too often, Australian republicanism is narrowly interpretedas the property of a radical, predominantly Labor inspired, anti-BritishAustralian nationalism.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that there is botha conservative and labor tradition of republican thought in Australia- traditions which are not necessarily opposed but often related.The first section of the paper will deal with two aspects of ourrepublican past which affect our understanding of the contemporaryrepublican debate - 'the inevitable republic, and the questionof definition.' The bulk of the paper will be devoted to exploringthe republican arguments which surfaced before the granting ofresponsible government in 1856 and prior to Federation in 1901.Finally, the paper will seek to encourage a reappraisal of currentrepublican policy, primarily by challenging the extremely narrowimage of republicanism which prevails in the 1990s. If there arerepublican traditions in our past, they are the property of allpolitical parties. They are beholden to no political ideologyor creed and they bear as much relevance to the conservative traditionsof Australian politics as they do to radical and socialist traditions. The Not So Far Distant Day. The Inevitable Australian Republic
'The independence of the Australian colonies is not a mere abstractidea. It is as certainly approaching as is the dawn of tomorrow'ssun.'
People's Advocate (Sydney) 17 June 1854
In the 1990s, we have grown accustomed to public statements fromfederal and state politicians proclaiming the inevitability ofa republic(1). In the press, parliaments and public meetings of Australia- there has been a chorus of inevitability around the word 'republic'since the early nineteenth century.(2) To borrow an image from theAustralian poet Kenneth Slessor, it has long been assumed thattime would eventually run its bony knife through the British connection.(3)Across the political spectrum, the inevitability of a republichas rarely been contested, the point of disagreement more oftenbeing centred on the most appropriate time for its arrival.(4) Inthe parliamentary debates which preceded the granting of responsiblegovernment in NSW in the 1850s and in the colonial parliamentsof the 1890s prior to federation, there were many members whoprofessed their loyalty to the British crown and at the same timeaccepted the inevitability of an Australian republic.(5) Perhapsthis should remind us that playing the inevitability card in therepublican debate has not only been employed to justify the comingof the republic, but also to delay its arrival. This was somethingwhich one of Australia's greatest republicans, John Dunmore Lang,realised as early as 1850.
It is universally admitted that there must ultimately be a timefor the separation of a colony or group of colonies from the parentstate. 'But nobody surely', it will be added, ' can be madenough to suppose that the time has come yet! Wait a while longerby all means - it is only a question of time.' [But] thisquestion of time is just the point upon which the whole case turns.(6)
In the early nineteenth century, a republic was often thoughtto be inevitable because the notion of an essentially republicanform of government under the guise of constitutional monarchyhad yet to emerge.(7) After the colonies were granted responsiblegovernment in 1856, it became clear that democratic institutionscould develop without the need for separation from the mothercountry. Nonetheless, colonial Australians accepted the validityof the inevitable republic. They looked to America, a beacon ofprosperous and democratic republican government in the New World,as one example which the Australian colonies might follow. Butmost of all, they saw the development of colonial societies asanalogous to that of individuals.(8) Young Australia was frequentlydepicted as a child awaiting maturation. Today when we listento republicans, such as Thomas Keneally, we can still observethe power of the filial metaphor.(9) One of the most common argumentsused to prop up the republic is the need for Australia to 'comeof age'. This metaphor suggests the necessary metamorphosis froma pubescent mono-cultural and British Australia to a multi-culturaland republican Australia. Yet regardless of the reasons behindthe belief in the inevitable republic, there is no doubt thatit has become a hoary cliche in the current debate. The dustydream of the inevitable republic has never inspired the involvementof the Australian people, instead it may have trapped them intothinking the republic will come of its own accord. It has tendedto delay and stall the debate rather than stimulate and invigorateit. To claim that the republic is inevitable makes no contributionto the republican debate. It is neither a statement of support,nor a rejection of policy. It does not lead, it simply equivocates.Perhaps it is worthwhile remembering the words of the democrat
E.W. O'Sullivan in the NSW Parliament in 1892:
We...who desire a republican form of government can afford towait. Time fights on our side and just as surely as the sun willshine tomorrow, before all of us who are here tonight are in ourgraves there will be a republican form of government in Australia.(10)
It is precisely this view of an Australian republic which haskept the grave diggers so busy.
The establishment of a republic ... means insurrectionary war,it means the desolation of a thousand households. When the questionshall arise, it will be determined ... by balls from cannon andfrom musket, by grape and shrapnel, by bayonet and by the sword.Sir Alfred Stephen, NSW Legislative Council 1887.(11)
The history of Australian republicanism is not the history ofa movement or even that of a consistently understood idea. Asthe American John Adams remarked, 'A republic may signify anything,everything or nothing'.(12) While the word 'republic' has remainedthe same, the meanings which we have attached to it have not.In the 1990s, a President's penchant for military uniform maybe a more reliable indication of the existing form of governmentthan the word 'republic'. Even a cursory glance at Australia'srepublican history indicates that we should be wary of some ofthe stereotypes which characterise the republican debate. Someof the most common are:
Broadly speaking, there have been four distinct but overlappingrepublican models in Australian history. The British, the French,the American and the Australian, the last being a largely derivativevariation on the themes of the first three. Perhaps now, in thelate twentieth-century, we possess a uniquely Australian republicanlanguage in the form of patriotic minimalism. In many ways, thehistory of Australian republicanism is the story of Australianpoliticians, journalists and political activists, drawing on thesemodels and often taking one set of associations - the 'true' republic,into the public domain.
The French model of republicanism is familiar. From the earliestyears of the colony, the French revolution of 1789 evoked imagesof violence and anarchy. In the minds of the governing classes,the French Republic and works such as Thomas Paine'sRightsof Man, sparked fears of bloodshed and mob rule. This revolutionaryimage of a republic steeped in gore certainly helped to stigmatisethe notion of a republic in colonial Australia. These negativeimages - at least for anti-republicans, were kept alive by theEuropean revolutions of 1848, the Irish Easter Rebellion in 1916,the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the many third world dictatorshipswhich emerged from colonial rule in the twentieth-century carryingthe title 'republic'.(13) Whether it was fear of Jacobins, Irish Catholics,or communists, the song remained the same. For those who saw themonarchical connection as the bedrock of stable government, theactive adoption of republicanism conjured up images of socialdecay, economic disaster, totalitarian government, or even worse,rule by the Vatican.(14) Even in the late twentieth-century, it isstill possible to find Australians who believe that a republicwill mean the end of civil society and gentlemanly behaviour.(15)
Closely connected to the revolutionary model of the republic wasthe American. In the early nineteenth century, the governing classesequated the 'Yankee' republic with the overthrow of colonial ruleand the tyranny of the majority, or in Australia's case, convictrabble.(16) Gradually, as the economic, military and political powerof the United States became more formidable, the image of theAmerican republic also became more positive. The Americans hadshown that republican government could be reconciled with federalgovernment, representative democracy, individualism, and freemarket economics. Rhetorically at least, the American republichad enshrined the principle of popular sovereignty, a step whichcemented the connection between republicanism and democratic governmentin the New World. Ironically, it was the American War of Independenceof 1776 and the subsequent loss of the American colonies by Britain,which virtually ensured that the Australian colonies would notbe forced to take up arms to achieve the degree of independencethey desired. After 1776, the Colonial Office was more likelyto adopt a policy of appeasement towards the Australian colonies,just as the Australian colonists frequently felt free to remindthe Colonial Office that another 4th of July would be the onlyrecourse if their demands for responsible government were notmet.(17) As the British Constitution slowly evolved to the statusof a disguised republic by the late nineteenth century, Australianpoliticians began to point to the virtues of the English Constitutionover the American republic. Evidence of social inequality, theAmerican Civil War of 1861-1865, and the monarchical powers ofthe American President, did much to tarnish the image of the Americanrepublic in Australia.(18)
Just as American republicanism was seen to carry singular associations,so it was with the English republican experience. From a contemporaryperspective, readers may well view the words English and republicanas oxymoronic. When we think of republicanism today, we oftenimagine a political concept which is anti (or at least non) monarchical.We think of severing the last ties with Great Britain - perhapsan Australian President replacing the British monarch as Headof State. While this may be the meaning which we associate withthe concept of an Australian republic in the 1990s we should beextremely careful not to impose our contemporary understandingof the republic on the past. The fact that constitutional monarchistsin the 1990s want Australia to remain a 'crowned republic' shouldindicate that there is another, submerged tradition of republicanismwhich we have yet to recognise. To grasp the English republicanmodel we have to be prepared to accept that the non-monarchicalconcept of a republic is only one of the understandings of republicanismwhich have played a formative role in the development of our politicalinstitutions.
The particular understanding of the English constitution whichwas brought to Australia's shores by British immigrants was one'steeped in the rhetoric of constitutionalism and the rule oflaw'.(19) All classes placed great faith in parliamentary and legalprocesses as the appropriate mechanisms of reform. When conservativessought the maintenance of existing institutions or liberals orradicals sought reform, all appealed to the English Constitution.These demands frequently consisted of appeals to the anti-absolutistprinciples embodied in Magna Carta or the Glorious Revolutionof 1688 - the right to trial by jury, to be protected from excessivepunishment, the right to petition and above all else, the rightto resist arbitrary rule.(20) After 1688, the monarch's powers wererestricted, parliament was sovereign and the old notion of thedivine right of kings no longer prevailed.(21)
Thanks largely to the work of historians such as J.G. Pocock,we are aware that the language used by the English colonists toprotect their constitution (as outlined in the English Bill ofRights of 1689) relied heavily on classical republican principles.(22)Implicitly, the first of these principles was that 'true' republicangovernment was based on a balance of the three-fold order - Kings,Lords and Commons, ie., the classical model of a republic whichdid not necessarily exclude monarchy. As Graham Maddox remindsus, it was this aspect of the classical republic, the mixed constitution,together with the notion of checks and balances, which was firstapplied to Rome from Aristotle's original suggestions by the Greekhistorian Polybius and later by Cicero. The notion of balancedgovernment was also integral to the popular understanding of theEnglish Constitution and had been since the seventeenth century.According to Henry Parkes, every Englishman who arrived in Australiaunderstood the most ideal form of government as a balance betweenthe three fold order - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.(23)
For Pocock, classical republicanism was represented by the articulateddesire for balanced government, the separation of powers, civicvirtue, and the resistance to arbitrary rule, a tradition of politicalthought which originated in Ancient Rome, was filtered throughRenaissance Florence and enshrined in the Stuart Restoration of1660 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, before finally providingthe foundation for the anti-absolutist arguments of the Americanrevolutionaries in the late eighteenth century.(24)
Classical republicanism could embrace or be synonymous with thetrappings of proper citizenship status such as trial by jury.It could be associated with the granting of responsible governmentor emphasise the value of citizen participation. It opposed oppressionand tyranny and feared corruption and patronage. It was not principallya doctrine about monarchy but about constitutional rule. Finally,it was neither anti-British nor necessarily anti-monarchical.
Although this language dominated the grievance rhetoric of colonialpolitics in Australia - especially in the early nineteenth century- it was never referred to as 'republican' by those who used it.More often than not Australian colonists saw themselves as exiledBritons appealing for citizenship rights under the British Constitution.For those who led the campaign for responsible government andan end to transportation, their sense of the word republic wasoverwhelmingly dictated by the modern anti-monarchical conceptof republican government as encapsulated in the American and Frenchmodels. To refer to themselves proudly, actively and openly asrepublican would have been thought to be anti-British. Yet whenthey were pressed to explain their understanding of a 'true' republic,they frequently retreated to the classical model, equating republicangovernment with balanced government, representative democracy,and insisting that their precious English constitution was essentiallya republic in disguise. After the Glorious Revolution in 1688,maintaining the monarchy in Britain was one way of concealingthe steady democratisation of the English constitution - as LordBalfour admitted in his introduction to Walter Bagehot'sEnglishConstitution, published in 1867:
[Monarchy] provides the disguise which happily prevents the ordinaryEnglishman from discovering that he is not living under a monarchybut under a republic.(25)
The classical republican inheritance of the English model, soughtto enshrine one form of a republic - not the American or French,but the essentially conservative and disguised English form.
The remainder of this paper will focus on the manner in whichAustralians derived various elements of the French, American andEnglish models to form their own traditions of republicanism,traditions which have the potential to offer some insight intothe way we might approach the republican debate in the lead upto the centenary of Federation. The Conservative Traditions of Australian Republicanism
Our lineage is long and honourable. Our predecessors are not therepublicans. We are the people who demanded self government fromthe British. We are the people who made the Commonwealth out ofsix colonies. We are the people who adopted our own flag, andour own national anthem. Now we ask for an Australian Head ofState, the last step to our independence.John Hirst, 1994(26)
Australian historian John Hirst has argued the conservative casefor an Australian Republic since 1991.(27) In the above quotation,taken from his recent book'A Republican Manifesto', Hirstdenies that the antecedents of the Australian Republican Movementare in fact 'the republicans'. Hirst's denial of a republicaninheritance is interesting because it implicitly suggests a stereotypicalimage of republicanism. By seeking to separate republicanismfrom the campaign for self-government and federation, Hirst pushesrepublicanism back into its radical and anti-British corner. Tosome degree, he is right. The republicans of the 1990s are indeedfollowing in the footsteps of those Australians who fought forself-government from the British. Yet there is no reason forus to exclude 'republicanism' from those political struggles.We can now recognise that there is, after all, one kind of republicanismpresent in these essentially conservative movements for limitedconstitutional independence. It is not the republicanism of HenryLawson or the SydneyBulletin of the 1880s, but the republicanismof the great reformers of Australian liberalism such as HenryParkes. To understand this republican tradition it is best tobegin with the campaign for responsible government in the 1850s.
In the mid-nineteenth century, there were two issues which dominatedthe face of colonial politics in Australia. The first was thefight to halt the transportation of convicts and the second wasthe struggle for responsible government. The majority of menwho led these campaigns were colonial liberals, they were menof the emerging middle class - men such as the Tasmanian JohnWest or the New South Welshman Charles Cowper. They held a strongallegiance to the principles of the English Constitution and atno time did they entertain thoughts of disloyalty to the Crown.Yet when they grew impatient with the accepted vehicles of protest,such as the petition, they occasionally resorted to threats ofseparation and independence in the hope of forcing concessionsfrom the British government.(28)
Before responsible government was granted to the colonies in 1856,it was common to encounter colonial politicians declaring theirloyalty to the monarch and in the same breath threatening a republic.(29)By threatening separation, they hoped to extend the full benefitsof the English Constitution to the colonies - rights such as anindependent House of Assembly and freedom from the forced transportationof convicts. Their grievances were not with the monarch - forit was the monarch whom they petitioned and the monarch whom theybelieved would uphold the validity of their claim as subjectsof the British Crown - instead, their grievances were with thoseministers in London who sullied the English Constitution by maintainingunjust policies. Thus, we find John West, editor of theLauncestonExaminer, and one of the instigators of the inter-colonialleague to fight for an end to transportation - the AustralasianLeague, writing of the prospect of an Australian Republic in 1852.
We believe that at the present moment no people could be moreloyally disposed than those at the antipodes - that none wouldsever the tie with more regret - that none would be more proudof the connection, or maintain it with greater power, skill andvalour; but if responsible government be refused - if the fairclaims of Australia be disregarded, in our heart we believe thatin less than two years she will be a republic - a southern counterpartof the confederacy in the north....Will England be wise in timewith respect to Australia?(30)
West, and those who campaigned with him, were reluctant rebels.Ideally, they did not seek an Australian republic separated fromGreat Britain (unlike republicans such as John Dunmore Lang andDaniel Deniehy). What they did want, as the young Henry Parkesso often explained, was the 'substance' of republican government,without the 'shadow' of the name - and without the dangers ofseparation. When Parkes was pressed to explain what he understoodby republican government, he cleverly exposed the ambiguity ofthe 'R' word.
The word 'republic', as everybody ought to know, does not conveyany necessary distinction between one form of constitution andanother. Every constitution is in reality a republic. There isjust as much a republic in England as there is in the United States,the only difference being, that in the one case the word is notused, and in the other it is.(31)
This view of republicanism was widespread in colonial Australia- especially among those who campaigned for responsible government.Even at the height of the diggers' discontent on the goldfieldsof Victoria, the paper which had championed the rights of thediggers, theGold Digger's Advocate, explained that thecoming of responsible government in Victoria would bring republicangovernment.
(The new Constitution) will make the government elective, insofaras it will be responsible to the representatives of the people.It will be government emanating from the will of the people, andruling for the good of the people. It will recognise the sovereigntyof the people and this is what all the world calls republicanism...Werethis colony to be severed tomorrow from the mother country itcould not be more a republic than it will be under responsiblegovernment fairly carried out....(32)
In August 1855, the MelbourneAge, edited by the Victorianliberals David Blair and Ebenezer Syme, agreed with theGoldDigger's Advocate, and devoted an entire editorial to theissue of a Republic.
In this colony the term [republic] has already acquired a meaningdistinct from any which have been mentioned. From the nature ofour relation to England, it has become synonymous with nationalindependence. This is almost the only meaning we attach to itwhen we use it ourselves, and we observe the same in others. AVictorian Republic indicates Victorian self-government. We shallhave the reality under the New Constitution; and having that,the name is of little consequence. We may add, what may appeara paradox, that, in our opinion, we shall have more of the realitywithout the name than with it.(33)
Interestingly, theAge saw no contradiction at the timebetween 'national independence' and the continuing power of theBritish government to veto colonial legislation. This should remindus that for many conservative reformers in the nineteenth century,Australian nationalism and loyalty to the Crown developed andco-existed in tandem as compatible allegiances. As the Australiancolonies approached Federation, many conservatives carried thisequation of republican government with representative federaldemocracy into the federation debates, under the secure umbrellaof continued allegiance to the Crown. Sir Richard Baker, memberof the South Australian Legislative Council, openly proclaimedthat 'he was a republican but was as loyal to the Queen and stronglyattached to Great Britain as anybody'. Baker told the people ofAdelaide in a public speech on federation that South Australiawas already a republic just as the new Commonwealth soon wouldbe - 'government by the people, for the people.'(34) Leading advocatesof Federation such as Henry Parkes and Alfred Deakin also consideredthe word 'Commonwealth' as apt for the new federation, not becauseit indicated any allegiance to the Crown, but because of its oldEnglish meaning - government 'for the common good'.(35)
When Henry Parkes spoke at the beginning of the convention, hemade it clear that he had 'no time to talk' about 'republicanism'.
If a time should come when it would be necessary to sever theconnection with the mother country, it will come, as it came inAmerica, in spite of the loyalty, in spite of the good feelingof the chief men of the time. It will not come to meet the wildravings of some person who may call out 'Republicanism', withoutthe slightest knowledge of what he is talking about.(36)
For Parkes, 'true' republicanism had always been grounded in theEnglish civil war period of 1649-1660. Parkes believed that thespirit of republicanism and the commonwealth was not anti-monarchical,but anti-tyrannical. This explains why he consistently arguedthat the United States could not be strictly called a republicbecause its system of government allowed for a President who wasmore powerful than the monarch in the English constitution, thevery constitution which Parkes wished to embrace by suggestingthe title of Commonwealth for the new Australian federation.(37) WhenParkes asked Edmund Barton's 'journalist-brother' G.B. Bartonto write an 'annotated version' of the Convention's Draft Bill,Barton's introduction explicitly set out to connect the titleof Commonwealth with pre-Cromwellian England.(38) Quoting Shakespeare,Harrington and Locke, Barton stressed that the word 'Commonwealth'simply described a state or community which in turn did not necessarilyexclude monarchy. 'It corresponded', said Barton 'with the termrespublica, as used by the political writers of ancient Rome...King James the First was even pleased to call himself 'the GreatServant of the Commonwealth'.(39) For both Parkes and Barton the choiceof the word 'Commonwealth' was the achievement of one type ofrepublic. In this sense, many Australians have yet to appreciatethe submerged 'republican' legacy in their present constitution.While this legacy is not the dominant and more active anti-monarchicalstrain with which we are familiar, it still deserves to be acknowledged.
Consequently, one conservative tradition of Australian republicanismis centred on the reform of political institutions in a way whichfocuses on enhancing the traditions of parliamentary democracy.It is not anti-monarchical or anti-British, but a tradition whichis inherently suspicious of executive power, and favourable tochecks and balances and the dispersal of power within a federalframework. For many conservatives, the republic is not the nation,the President, or the monarch, but the essence of democratic government.
The Labor Tradition of Australian Republicanism
To use the words 'Labor Tradition' is to step onto a well minedfield of historical interpretation. Labor has been far more activein inventing its own historical tradition than have the conservativeparties in Australia.(40)
To some extent, this imbalance has resulted in a particular interpretationof Australian nationalism becoming ascendant, largely throughthe attention the Labor Party has devoted to its own politicalhistory - as well as the influence exerted by Labor leaning intellectualssuch as Manning Clark throughout the 1970s and 1980s The battlefor ownership of Australia's nationalist and progressive politicaltraditions has only intensified in the 1990s, as the republicandebate has encouraged both parties to 'claim' competing representationsof Australia's past. In the next five years we are likely to witnessmore attempts by those parties involved in the republican debateto appropriate certain views of Australia's past in order to legitimisepolicy initiatives.(41) One of the key ingredients in this act ofremembering is the Labor tradition of republicanism.
From 1991, the Keating government represented the nationalistrepublican agenda of its own government as a policy dominatedlargely by a Labor legacy.(42) The nation and the coming republic,at least so far as Federal Labor was concerned, have not beenpart of the conservative traditions of Australian politics. Theimage is familiar: Labor is painted as the progressive party ofnational renewal while the Conservatives are seen as vacuous fiftiesretros with their feet stuck in the Menzies' mud of the 1950s.In the previous section of this paper I set out to demonstratethat there is a conservative tradition of Australian republicanism.In this final section, I hope to demonstrate that the Labor traditionof Australian republicanism contains elements which have alsobeen forgotten or repressed, perhaps to the detriment of the currentdebate. By referring to a Labor tradition I refer not only tothe Labor Party itself but to those individuals and elements whosepolitical philosophy might be seen as broadly associated withthe labour movement.
The Australian is not a Briton by birth, nor is he a Briton insentiment. He has aspirations and sentiments, habits and capacitiesof which a Briton knows nothing and cannot share...He is of anew denomination and has new thoughts, beliefs and aspirings.The Australian Star, 1890.(43)
The first and most clearly discernible feature of the Labor traditionof republicanism in Australia, is its nationalism. Whereas theconservative tradition of republicanism was able to accommodatea dual allegiance to both Crown and adopted Country, the Labortradition has always sought to frame the issue of loyalty as achoice between Australian independence and fealty to the mothercountry.
The republicans who were most responsible for initiating thistradition were the two pivotal figures of mid-nineteenth centuryrepublicanism - the Scottish born Presbyterian minister John DunmoreLang, and the native born politician and publicist Daniel Deniehy.Lang and Deniehy were both leading figures in the fight to endtransportation and the campaign for responsible government.
In 1852 Lang published his most impressive republican work, 'Freedomand Independence for the Golden Lands of Australia', in whichhe argued passionately and intelligently for an Australian republic.He was quick to point out that a republic was not compatible withcontinued allegiance to Britain.
Under the universal government of God, there cannot possibly betwo inconsistent and incompatible rights... the right to obedienceand allegiance on the one part, is clearly inconsistent and incompatiblewith the right to freedom and independence on the other.(44)
Like Lang, Deniehy believed that it was only under a republicthat government would be entirely identified with place and people,the growth of national character [and] the full development ofthe country's physical resources. 'While Australia remained aBritish colony or a dependency of any state', said Deniehy, 'thiswas impossible.'(45)
Naturally, this choice must have seemed more dramatic in a colonialsociety such as NSW in the 1850s, but the connection between republicanismand nationalism was to become even stronger in the late nineteenthcentury. Deniehy knew, even after responsible government had beengranted, that one of the important questions facing the Australiancolonies would be whether 'the Australian and English nationality'were henceforth 'to be identical'.(46)
In the 1850s few colonists saw themselves as Deniehy did - as'Australians' - it was not until the late nineteenth century thatan attempt was made to invent a distinct national identity inAustralia. In these years, a small but influential republicanmovement attached itself largely to the left wing of the labourmovement.(47) In Sydney, Louisa and Henry Lawson, who were both intouch with the fluid, minority political culture of the radical,urban intelligentsia, championed a new vision of Australian identity,riding on the back of largely derivative socialist theory. Togetherwith George Black, one of the founding members of the ALP, theyprojected Australian nationalism as antithetical to the old, classridden, and socially divisive model of British capitalism.(48) TheLawsons' nationalism was spurred on by the occasion of the Queen'sJubilee in 1887 and the Centenary of Settlement in 1888. The imageof an Australian republic was usually presented (especially byjournals such as the SydneyBulletin) as one detached fromBritish traditions.
Louisa and Henry Lawson published their small monthly journal'The Republican' from the back rooms of a Phillip Streetcottage in 1887. Louisa's contributions included poems praisingAustralia as the 'beloved home giver' for the immigrants who cameto her shores, while Henry called for a new appreciation of Australianhistory:
If this is Australia, and not a mere outlying suburb of England;if we really are the nucleus of a nation and not a mere handfulof expatriated people dependent on an English Colonial Secretaryfor guidance and tuition, it behoves us to educate our childrento a knowledge of the country they call their own.(49)
The Lawsons were among the first in what was to become a longline of Australian artists and authors who championed a uniquerepublican nationalism. The list is impressive, Adelaide Ironside,the Australian painter of the mid nineteenth century, the poetCharles Harpur, Louisa and Henry Lawson, Donald Horne, PatrickWhite, Les Murray and Arthur Boyd. In a young, isolated country,the connection between art and nationalism was bound to be close.As Australia's artists became more independent of British models,republicanism was a convenient refuge for those who wished tosignify their separation from the cultural mecca of London. Tohave remained loyal to Britain would have constituted a form ofpsychological dependence which would somehow shackle creativeendeavour (assuming of course that the primary aim of art wasto project a national identity). One of the key characteristicsof the Labor tradition of republicanism has therefore been theassociation between republicanism and cultural independence -in other words - the slaying of the cultural cringe. This wasP.R. Stephensen's message in 1936:
It seems to me that while Australia remains in the British Empire,and while the British Empire is controlled from London and whileAustralia accepts mentally or politically a subordinate or subsidiarystatus within that empire, it will be quite impossible for Australiansto develop a culture here with distinct national features.(50)
Stephensen's perception was picked up by republicans such as DonaldHorne in the 1960s and also in the 1970s by the poet Les Murray,who spoke at a republican rally in 1977:
The prospect of living ones whole life in a timid late colonialsociety is a mediocre and galling one and Australians don't haveto endure such a prospect. If the republic is about anything,it is about the dignity and potential of human beings in thiscountry. It is about rejecting slurs. It is about casting offthe psychological impediments to action. It is about confirmingand strengthening the confidence of every Australian.(51)
We might now understand the historical legacy which has inspiredthe Keating government's republicanism in the 1990s. It is onewhich perceives the republic as the boot which will finally stampout the memory of the cultural cringe. Keating has spoken frequentlyof the manner in which the republic will be the catalyst for arenaissance of Australian cultural endeavour.(52)
There are of course, other, more unsavoury aspects of the nineteenthcentury labour republicanism. The republic of the Lawsons andthe SydneyBulletin especially, was overtly racist andsexist. Indeed, the raison d'etre of the republic was based ona narrow, isolationist, and exclusive image of Australia as awhite man's shed. In particular, it was motivated by a hatredof Chinese immigration and was completely dismissive of Australia'sAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.(53) Perhaps this explainswhy the current republicans have not been too keen to quote thefounding fathers of their cause. There is no heroic pantheon ofrepublican antecedents.
Aside from the nationalism which is so central to the Labor traditionof republicanism, there were still other elements, in particular,the emphasis on social equality and labour reform. In the latenineteenth century, the democratic components of Labor's republicanismwere still prominent. This vision of democracy, largely one ofthe left, was different from the conservative traditions of Australianrepublicanism which had placed so much emphasis on English constitutionalism.With the republic as the symbol of the embryo nation, labour reformersof the 1880s sought to connect the maintenance of the monarchicalconnection in Australia with the persistence of social inequality.(54)For the majority of those involved in radical reform during theseyears, republicanism was simply a natural bedfellow of socialism.It was difficult to adhere to socialist doctrines and not be arepublican - at least theoretically. Anti-monarchical sentimentwas a common feature of radical working class politics in Australia,just as it was in England, and it was not always accompanied bya desire to campaign actively for the immediate introduction ofa republic. In 1892, theBulletin offered an amusing andfamiliar depiction of the royal family.
The Royal family exists to play baccarat and lay foundation stones,and make dreary speeches at dreary institutes... to yawn vacuouslyover addresses from bumpkin corporations and to be fat and stupidand unutterably dreary.(55)
In the 1890s, this was a typical view of the monarchy in the labourpress. For a short while, between 1887 and 1891, republicanismbecame a prominent theme in the political platforms of newspapersrepresenting the struggles of the working class. In Sydney, Melbourne,Adelaide, Brisbane, Charters Towers, Newcastle, Bathurst and Wagga,it was possible to find papers which were sympathetic to republicanfederation.(56) But as trade unions began to develop a national structureand with the formation of the Australian Labor Party in 1891,republicanism played a less significant role. By the time of federationin 1901, the dream of a republic was one which few inside thelabour movement wished to prioritise. Throughout most of the twentieth-century,the Labor Party was content to shelve the republic as an inevitablebut relatively unimportant reform.(57) When it was finally resuscitatedin 1991, it was a republic focussed on the need for an Australianhead of state and a 'recasting' of Australian identity.(58) Labor'srepublic of the 1990s had retained the emphasis on national identitybut down played the connection between social democracy and republicanismthat had existed in 1890s. The crucial question is why?
First, it is important to realise that republicanism was usuallyan addendum to the more practical and achievable reform goalsof the labour movement.(59) Second, it was often understood, thatwhat mattered more than the mere 'form' of government was the'essential' or 'true' democratic fabric of Australian society.The BrisbaneBoomerang explained this position in 1890:
Unless republicanism is thoroughly progressive and democraticpractically as well as nominally, we might as well remain exactlyas we are. Because we are discontent with King Log we do not wantto place ourselves in the hands of President Stork... The republicwe want is a land of free men whereon the government rests onthe people, and is by them with them and for them. No other formof republicanism will suit us not even though it does a few whofollow the will-o-the wisp of a mere name.(60)
This was an understanding of the republic, not far removed fromthe conservative traditions of republicanism. The difference beingthat the labour movement sought to enshrine a social democraticform of government with government as the guarantor of equalitywhile the conservatives were content with the laissez-faire capitalistmodel operating within the framework of Imperial loyalty.
By the early 1890s, as the first members of the ALP began to taketheir seats in colonial parliaments, there was a broad consensusthat although Labor politicians were republicans in theory, theywere not about to risk their new found legitimacy in parliamentby campaigning for a republic which was both inevitable and distant- the majority of the population were not ready to support republicanfederation.(61) Having accepted the existing political institutionsas the best means through which to achieve reform, as well astaking their oaths of loyalty to the Crown, Labor members soondiscovered that the English monarch presented no obstacle to Labor'sreforms. In addition, in a global climate of pending imperialconflict, the British connection represented a security blanket- White Australia's safeguard. Ironically, the very crimson threadwhich republicans such as Lawson and Black had sought to replacewith a distinctly Australian character and identity, was alsothe most obvious means of protecting the most precious aspectof their new nation - White Australia.
The once champion of the racist republic - theBulletin- was almost affectionate towards the British monarchy by 1901:
The British monarchy in its purely business aspect is practicallyunobjectionable. So long as it is understood that the Britishmonarch holds his or her position by the will of the nation andfor the convenience of the nation, there is no reason for complaintagainst the monarchical system.(62)
TheBulletin, like many other sections of the labour movement,had realised that the British monarchy reigned, but did not rule.The Federation of the Australian colonies in 1901, under the Crown,was a crucial turning point in Labor's attitude towards the republic.The republic was now detached from Labor's socialist and democraticprogram of reform. It was simply a nationalist dream that wouldhave to wait. Entrenched as a social democratic party within afederal, constitutional monarchy, the centre and right of theparty were always reluctant to be portrayed as disloyal. In fact,the Labor Party was often the leading promoter of allegiance toBritain and the Crown - especially during the first half centuryof federation.(63) It was the left wing of the party and the tradeunion movement which kept the republican flame burning and eventhen it was only occasional flashes of anti-royalist sentimentthat surfaced.(64)
Thus, we should not be surprised to discover that the republicanismof the Australian Republican Movement and the Keating Governmentwere avowedly minimalist. This is perfectly consistent with thedecision that the Labor Party made at the turn of the last century.The republic is not about democracy it is about national identity,a new head of state (one of us instead of one of them). Democracyis that which can be achieved through the pragmatic vehicle ofparliamentary legislation, the republic is merely the nationalistrump of that agenda.
The central purpose of this paper has been to suggest that thereare several useful insights to be gained from Australia's republicanhistory for protagonists in the contemporary republican debate.
For many Australian conservatives, there is a republican traditionwhich they have yet to tap. This is the tradition of Parkes, Deakin,and Higinbotham. The tradition of Australian liberalism whichseeks to acknowledge Australian aspirations to national independencecarries a profound respect for Australia's parliamentary traditionsof fair, open, and balanced government and promotes an activeyet moderate approach to constitutional reform. The conservativetradition of Australian republicanism is one centred on representativedemocracy not on the monarchy. Perhaps, in the latter half ofthe twentieth century, Australia's conservative politicians haveinvested too much of their democratic heritage in the Britishmonarchy. At the very least, this is how they have, since thetime of Menzies, allowed themselves to be represented.
In the nineteenth century, and even the first half of the twentiethcentury, allegiance to the British Crown made practical sensefor Australian conservatives. Yet it would be unlikely that mensuch as Parkes and Deakin would agree that the British monarchshould continue to act as Australia's Head of State into the twenty-firstcentury. Rather, they would be more likely to see an AustralianHead of State as a natural, evolutionary step for the Commonwealth- in keeping with the spirit of the Balfour Declaration of 1926,the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and the Australia Act of 1986.
In 1996, perhaps the more lasting focus of a conservative defenceof the Australian constitution does not lie in protecting themonarch but in ensuring that Australia's parliamentary traditionsremain intact. It might also involve the development of partypositions on a wide range of constitutional reforms, especiallyon associated issues such as federalism, and representative democracy.This would only be in keeping with their own 'republican' tradition- concentrating on the substance of the constitution rather thanthe shadow of a name.
The dominant Labor tradition of Australian republicanism is onewhich also has something to gain by reappraising its past. SinceFederation in 1901, and particularly since the dismissal of theWhitlam government by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in 1975,the notion of a republic has been boxed into a nationalist corner,focussed on the pinhead of state, and detached from Labor's broaderagenda of reform. For reasons of perceived political expediencethe republic and democracy have become mutually exclusive.
The first Labor visions of an Australian republic were not onlyattached to Australian identity but also to the ideals of socialjustice, one vote one value, citizens' rights, and equal accessto resources such as land and capital.
The original Labor vision may not have been tolerant but nor wasit politically confined. In the 1990s both Conservatives and Laborhave focussed the issue of an Australian republic through thefilter of identity and heritage. This is but one part of our sharedrepublican past. The more substantial and potentially more invigoratingrepublicanism, is that which seeks to move the republican debatebeyond the familiar framework of monarch or president, to encompassthe essence of 'respublica' and the commonwealth - governmentfor the common good. This is the focus of the people's republic. Endnotes
Other Parliamentary Library publications:
Background Papers |Current Issues Briefs |Research Notes |Bills Digests |Monthly Economic and Social Indicators
Return to Parliamentary Library home page
This page was prepared by the Parliamentary Library, Commonwealth of Australia
Last updated: 28 May 1996
Comments or suggestions todpl.publications@aph.gov.au.
