On November 6, under pain of a $50 fine, we will all be marched off to the polling booths to vote on whether Australia is to become a republic.
The absence of popular excitement is deafening, and with good reason: the choice before us has been deliberately restricted to exclude any of the more substantive changes needed to democratise Australia's constitution.
Australia has no bill of rights, for example, so freedom of speech, assembly and conscience are only "implied" in the constitution, and therefore more easily restricted. Australia's electoral laws are an undemocratic sham, rigging parliamentary ballots in favour of the two main parties of the wealthy. And the decisions of this country's real powerbrokers — those who hold wedding receptions the cost of which could feed the world's starving for a year — are subject to no-one's vote.
Even on the narrow issue of the head of state, the overwhelming popular choice — a president elected by the people — is not an option in the ballot. All that is up for grabs is a simple replacement of the queen and governor-general with a parliament-appointed president.
Green Left Weekly advocates that you vote "yes" to the republic on November 6, not as endorsement of the "safe and conservative" model of official republicanism, but as a statement that this is the beginning of the changes we want and need.
To make that statement all the clearer, we advocate two further things: that you write "elected by the people" on your ballot paper to indicate the kind of president you want (but are being denied), and that you get active in the movement for socialism, because genuine change doesn't come as a gift from above: it has to be fought for.
Nationalist symbolism
The reasons we advocate a "yes" vote are entirely different from those put forward by the republic's official supporters, who include most of Australia's business figures, newspaper publishers and politicians. For these people, the republic is not about democratic change; it's about nationalist symbolism.
In April 1993, desperate to show that he had the "vision thing", Labor PM Paul Keating appointed a select committee to investigate how Australia could become a republic with the least possible impact on the rest of the power structure. Advocating an "uncompromised Australian identity", Keating argued, "I am for the republic for what it can deliver — a new sense of unity and national pride in which Australians of this and future generations can share".
Malcolm Turnbull, the chairperson of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), described the republic as "inextricably entwined with the way we see ourselves as a vibrant, confident and independent participant in the emerging economies of the Asia-Pacific region".
Promoting "unity" and "national pride" is a means to an end. It is ideological justification for an economic project: making Australian business more "competitive" and more profitable, with all that that entails.
The aim of the capitalist republicans was most crassly put by appointed Constitutional Convention delegate and company director Helen Lynch: "The head of state ought to be the advocate for the brand — Australia — the person who promotes and protects our brand image in the global supermarket ... a resident for president is in the best interests of Australia, and Australian business."
The 'no' case
It's no wonder, therefore, that many people are less than enthusiastic about the "yes" case. Voting "no", as a protest against the undemocratic narrowness of the republican model being offered, would be understandable, but it would be mistaken. A "no" vote would not be in the interests of working-class people or genuine democratic change.
The monarchists, led by Coalition figures such as minister for gutting welfare Tony Abbott, minister for complicity in genocide Alexander Downer and kingpin John Howard, have seized upon people's anger at the ARM-style republic and used it to avoid arguing why the queen should remain head of state.
They have simultaneously argued that the proposal doesn't go far enough (by excluding direct presidential election) and that it goes too far (and threatens dictatorship). They've even be partial to some good old-fashioned scaremongering: Bronwyn Bishop (minister for aged care), for example, claimed that Hitler's rise to power was a result of Germany becoming a republic.
The monarchists' job has been made much easier by the support of several prominent advocates of directly electing the president. Dubbed "radical republicans" by the establishment media, former parliamentarians Phil Cleary and Ted Mack have argued that people should vote "no" as a protest against the undemocratic exclusion of direct election and because the model proposed would entrench executive power.
There is nothing "radical" in this position. A victory for the "no" case would only strengthen the conservatives, who oppose even minor changes to the status quo.
The radical 'yes'
Green Left Weekly advocates a "yes" vote for two reasons. In and of itself, dumping the queen would be a step forward. As well, a "yes" vote is capable of increasing people's confidence to pursue further, more far-reaching democratic reforms.
Replacing a hereditary monarch with even an indirectly elected president is a small victory for democracy — and that is better than a defeat.
The queen no longer has any real power in Australia's political system, that's true. Nevertheless, her continued status as official figurehead is an affront to the basic democratic principle that all sovereignty should come from the people.
More importantly, the chances for real change rely in large part on working people's confidence that, if they do fight, they can win. Such increased confidence is the precondition for further struggles to overhaul Australia's unjust political system.
A "yes" victory could have a salient and valuable impact on working-class morale. When the tide is so often running against us, and "change" generally means for the worse, even a small victory would help.
A "no" vote, on the other hand, would have the opposite effect on working-class morale. It would be a victory for the status quo and therefore would reinforce the false and damaging impression that progressive change is too difficult to achieve in this country. If something as simple and obvious as getting rid of the queen didn't succeed, many might think, what chance do larger changes have?
Those on the left hesitating, or even supporting, the "no" case should ask themselves one further question. John Howard has had his way on native title, anti-union laws, privatisation, decimating the public sector and the GST, and he's laced it all with stifling 1950s social conservatism. Would handing him another victory really help our cause?
Stepping stone
A "yes" result is only of longer lasting value if it is a stepping stone to further struggles and changes. In voting "yes", therefore, there has to be some indication that what is on offer, the Turnbull republic, isn't enough. This is why we are advocating that you write "elected by the people" on your ballot, in support of the principle that any head of state should be directly elected.
It can't be left there, either. Votes, in and of themselves, change little; they're the political version of spectator sports. What counts is active rather than passive dissent, organised rather than dispersed rebellion. All those who want to see fundamental, deep-going democratic change have to stand up and get organised now.
A new web site has been established to promote the radical "yes" case. Set up by the Democratic Socialists, the web site (<http://www.dsp.org.au/ds/referendum>) features articles from Green Left Weekly and sample ballot papers. Check it out!