The nationalist debate that preceded the poll cut across party lines. It was not about "republicanism" versus "monarchism" nor about a spurious need for Australian "independence."

The new need for "an Australian head of state" is part of the rulers' evolving discussion about how to advance "Australia's place" in capitalism's crisis-ridden global disorder. The poll took place as Australian forces led a military occupation of East Timor, with the backing of all the capitalist parties, the labor officialdom, and most middle-class radical groups.

The "yes" campaign was marked by the nationalist theme of the need for an Australian head of state. Using the symbol of an "Aussie" president "who is one of us" and "above the political fray," the rulers aim to induce workers to identify more with "our" capitalist exploiters. Supporters of the status quo counter that the governor-general, always an Australian since 1965, is "effectively" the head of state.  
 

Vote didn't show support for queen

Opinion polls leading up to the compulsory vote indicated that a majority of "no" voters supported a republic in principle, putting total republican sentiment just under 75 percent. Another poll found less than 10 percent said their choice was based mainly on support for the queen.

"It was not a vote against the republic, it was a vote against the setup," declared Peter Seaton, a boilermaker from Tregear.

Jason Tasic, a sheetmetal worker, said he deliberately abstained from voting over the lack of choice. "I'd rather cop a fine than vote for a kind of republic I didn't want. It's the first time I've ever not voted."

Two Turkish-born operators at a wrecking yard, Mehmetali Sozer and Ahmet Inou, said they voted yes, although they both supported a popularly elected president.

Supporters of the constitutional monarchy combined forces with republicans who support a directly elected president to defeat the referendum proposal, in a campaign that ironically helped to further undermine support for the monarchy. This official "no" campaign used the nationalist image of Australia as the most stable country in the world, with the theme, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" But another central slogan was, "If you want to vote for the President … Vote No to the Politicians' Republic."

The biggest "no" vote came in working-class and rural electorates. Most press commentators concluded that those in the bottom half of the economic heap had given the republican proposal "their kiss of death." Writing on the eve of the vote, the Australian's international editor, Paul Kelly, wrote, the "support for the no case reveals … distrust of the system, hostility towards politicians, alienation from decision-making, resentment at the rapid pace of … 1990s top-down reforms."

Reflecting widespread capitalist support for a moderate republican shift, the editorial opinion of the major dailies across the country was solidly for a yes vote. The West Australian was of the few that called for a no vote, but did so in favor of a directly elected president, while the Australian Financial Review criticized the referendum proposal as a "sham."

Since the vote Prime Minister John Howard — who campaigned for maintaining the status quo — has tried to gag a discussion that has divided his cabinet. His main leadership rivals in the Liberal Party have adopted varying republican positions. Treasurer Peter Costello supported the call for a "modernized" head of state "able to unite society." Employment Minister Peter Reith, the leading government union-buster, campaigned for a no vote, declaring that he saw a republic with a directly elected president as "an antidote to the sense of alienation many people have with our political process."

Reith played a central role in an attempt in early 1998 to break the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) at a major national stevedoring company, Patrick. In the biggest union battle in Australia for many years, widespread solidarity with the MUA forced the government and Patrick to back down. Today, in addition to continued opposition to the Howard government's attacks on unions, a deepening farm crisis is sparking new protests in the countryside.  
 

Debate continues in ruling circles

Meanwhile, ensuring that the republican debate continues, Australian Labor Party (ALP) leader Kim Beazley has pledged a future Labor government to carry out a process of plebiscites on a republic. During the campaign Beazley scored the royal family's role as ambassadors for British trade "providing aid and comfort to our opponents in trade." The ALP leadership is itself divided over the powers and means of electing the head of state in a republic. New South Wales Labor premier Robert Carr has denounced the direct-election model supported by other ALP leaders as setting up a "two-headed government in Canberra."

The outcome of the ballot had left the country "stranded in a constitutional wasteland, embracing neither monarchy nor republic with any firmness," Geoffrey Barker complained in the Australian Financial Review November 8, while the Sydney Morning Herald declared that the referendum "debacle" had "settled nothing."

Denouncing Howard for "a failure of leadership," in refusing to recognize the "inevitability of a republic … and its potential as a unifying force," the Herald editorialized that instead of "heading into the next century confident, proud, and united … we had yet another vote that reflects the divisions in our country."

A second referendum question, on a proposed constitutional preamble largely drafted by Howard, was defeated by a larger margin, with more than 60 percent against. A big majority of indigenous leaders opposed the wording referring to Aboriginal "kinship with," rather than the stronger "custodianship of," the land. At the same time, the National Party upped its racist scare campaign, claiming the changes would mean more native title rights over farm land.

The recent republican debate was initiated by then Labor prime minister Paul Keating in the early 1990s. Keating appointed Malcolm Turnbull, a prominent merchant banker, to head an official Republic Advisory Committee. Turnbull became the head of the Australian Republican Movement, which championed the "model" just voted on.

While in opposition at that time, the leadership of the conservative Liberal Party tried to blunt the push for a republic — and the debate within its own ranks — by backing a constitutional convention and referendum. A majority of the January 1998 convention — half of whose delegates were appointed by the Howard government and half elected — supported republican positions but were divided over minimal change or shifting to a directly elected president. Howard opposed both alternatives. The majority for the "minimalist" republic showed a growing shift within the ruling class over the last decade.  
 

Workers have no stake in flag-waving

The Australian capitalist class gained control of their state and waged wars to protect their own emerging imperialist interests in the region and the world, in a gradual process of separation from Britain. This spanned a century up to World War II. In 1926, London and the Commonwealth governments decided that governors-general would in the future follow only the instructions of their respective prime ministers, not the British Crown. In 1975, the Australian ruling class used the governor-general's powers as de facto head of state to dismiss the Labor government of Gough Whitlam after alerting their allies in Washington and London.

A statement issued by the Communist League pointed out that "working people have no stake in either side of [this] nationalist debate." It said, "workers, farmers, and youth have no common interests with the bosses and their government, including on the need for 'new,' revamped forms of governing, the better to rule over us as 'Australians.' ''

The CL called on workers and farmers to chart a course independent of the rulers' flag-waving, whether republican or monarchist.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home