Long Live Liz?

Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth the Second is a decrepit, ineffectual welfare bludger whose very existence makes a farce out of the egalitarian, democratic and meritocratic ideals that underpin our otherwise vibrant, modern democracy. She is a gross throwback to a time when rampant inequalities and desperate stinking poverty was not just tolerated, but part of the natural, divine order of things. When she eventually shuffles off this mortal coil, liberating the British Taxpayer from the burden of providing a pitiful crone and her inbred, talentless family the ostentious baubles of undeserved office, she will leave behind a legacy mired in conservative mediocrity - the only redemptive feature being that her and her family's inept ability to understand the British public has made the long-term viability of this loathsome Crown virtually untenable. But, for now, the British people continue to undermine their committment to freedom, and here in New Zealand, the face I see on my $20 dollar note is a wretched symbol of colonial oppression sitting on a gaudy throne thousands of miles away. A face who couldn't be bothered showing up to the funeral of the man whose face I see on my $5 dollar note, a true New Zealand hero forced to blot an impeccable lifetime of greatness by swearing fealty, and becoming a Knight, or servant, to a woman not fit to have cleaned his bathroom.

Strong words, and you are encouraged, of course, to disagree as to whether they are deserved. (Maybe even write a comment, or tick the 'sadface' box!) I'm pretty sure if my Nana knew how to use the internet, such a vitrolic opening paragraph would be fast and efficient way to be written out of her will. But today is, after all, a public holiday and a day off work - to celebrate the Anniversary of the Birth of the Reigning Sovereign. (although, its not even her real birthday - it is yet another of the privileges of winning the JACKPOT in the lottery of birth that you get to have TWO birthdays.). On today of all days, strong words - and a strong debate on the constitutional future of New Zealand, dole bludger or sans dole bludger - must be encouraged. A New Zealand republic is one of those issues that rears its hopeful head every few years, blunders about in the form of a poorly worded Garth George article on the issue, before being gently put back to sleep by the twin forces of political apathy and timid politicians. But it is a debate that we, the people, of New Zealand deserve. Because its very easy to write an opening paragraph ripping into Her Majesty for being undemocratic and useless. It's a lot harder to answer the question 'What would we replace her with?' without a more reasoned political discourse. It's why, in the absence of this discourse, I feel compelled - despite the fact it makes me feel ill (you could almost say I have a weak constitution, lulz!) - to support the continuation of the monarchy.

Why? Because I've thought about the Queen a lot lately. Far longer than any red-blooded, testosterone-fuelled 21 year old male should be thinking about any blue-blooded, caviar-fuelled 83-year old women. And having her as the head of state in New Zealand, represented by a Governor-General appointed by the Prime Minister, is just SO easy. The Governor-General, constrained by the fact he isn't elected, will sign any bill created by our elected MP's into law. Most of the time, we get on just fine with that. However, should Parliament turn into a complete constitutional clusterfuck (much like Canada's did earlier this year, if anyone read our joint post on that), the Governor-General can act as a constitutional backstop, can suspend/dissolve parliament, declare the opposition leader the PM if they have the support of the House and/or call an election. Sweeeet. (And if the Governor-General goes batshit insane, the PM can ask the Queen very nicely to remove the GG from office. Like a constitutional fine-leg, if I can be indulged the use of a cricketing term)

What would happen if we ditched her, and replaced her with something a lot more democratically palatable, but a lot more constitutionally difficult? I can think of three options, and all suck.

1. The Prime Minister is also the Head of State. - Sweet Jesusfuck, this would be a nightmare. In our constitutional system, where we have hardly any constraints on what the legislature comes up with (courts can't overrule it etc.), taking away the only person who is capable of stopping 'Slippery Johnny and the Budget Slashers' from passing a law which kills all blue eyed babies, or abolishes elections is patently absurd, and dangerous.

2. We elect a new head of state, who has the same powers the old Governor-General used to have - Aside from the hilarious situation suggested by a friend that Lyn of Tawa would compete against Sean Fitzpatrick for the nominal position of 'embodiment of everything New Zealand stands for', this seems like the most democratic way forward. After all, a Head of State is supposed to be someone that the citizens of the state are proud to have as thier head, right? The only problem is that, as I've pointed out, the Governor-General is a pretty important part of our constitution, who might just have to (as happened in Canada), decide on some preeeetty major issues - like,whether or not to sack an elected Prime Minister. The last four New Zealand GG's have all been respected judges - perhaps reflecting this need. While Sean Fitzpatrick might be the best New Zealander to cut ribbons, open Parliament and do all the mundane boring crap a GG does - I'm not sure if I'm happy with him making decisions in a constitutional crisis that have the potential to ruin the country. As a secondary point, there would be a great temptation for an elected President, backed by the 'will of the people', to overstep their authority and offer comment on all kinds of issues or even be more willing to interfere with parliamentary sovereignty (maybe refuse to sign a bill they do not like into law.)

3. The PM appoints a new 'President' who is then approved by Parliament - This takes care of the constitutional problems, BUT it feels a lot like the old unelected GG. It would be immensely politically unpopular - giving unpopular politicians the chance to pick the highest representative of New Zealand. Also, under this model we are denied the ability to have the Queen (or more likely, a trusted advisor) step in, should the GG go totally nuts and dissolve Parliament on a whim.

One last reason. Perhaps it is immature to design a new, monarch-free republic of New Zealand while lingering claims with Maori remain. Not only because a new constitutional structure would need to fully address the self-determination and cultural rights of Maori, but it seems desperately unfair to rob Maori of their right to seek grievances against the Crown, the representation of colonial oppression.

So, I have reached a conclusion I find deeply depressing, supporting the Queen because she's the least bad of a range of terrible options. Perhaps a reader can shed light on another possible option for a new Head of State in New Zealand, or even tell me why one of my suggested failmodels is in fact a constitutionalwin. Until then, the Queen might be a haggard symbol of inequality and imperialism, but she's easy.