Republic vs. The Crown

No other country in the world does ceremony like the British.  As we've seen recently with the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II, the formalities surrounding this was spectacular, moving and sobering, fitting for a state funeral and reflected the sadness and grief of the nation. 

This week it was announced that next May, 2023 we will have another ceremony in the state occasion of crowning the new King and Queen in a happier event, so more uniformed soldiers, gold coaches, spectacular music and clothes and crowns to look forward to.

I personally love that our own country of New Zealand is linked with the Crown, especially when the jewels and music and parades are brought out - it's a wonderful link with a rich and interesting history, and it truly would be a shame to do away with the hundreds of years of tradition, even though we think of ourselves as so 'modern' now and don't need this. It's true, we don't have to parade our Kings through the streets on horseback as they might have done in medieval times in a display that served as both an introduction and assertion of power in a time when Kings held political power. We no longer have to go to battle to the death for our Kings to sit on the throne, but by committing to a formal ceremony we are not only reminding the realms of the importance of the Crown, but the validity they give to our democracy. 

The Westminster democracy that our country's political system runs on, is one of the best in my opinion. 

My reason for this thinking is because republics - even with checks and balances in place still gives room for power-hungry people to jostle for position and it attracts people who want power, leaving it wide open for corruption and difficult for anyone who does not have huge wealth. Historically, republics tend to eventually descend into chaos and implode. The Roman Empire gives us an example of this. Ambitious men hungry for power began to not care about the rules and the laws, putting themselves forward as saviours, making up the rules, mocking the democratic processes and democracy descends into autocracy. 

Imagine if we were adopting such a republic system in New Zealand. Our current Prime minister Jacinda Ardern would be President Ardern. There would be no Governor General. In actual fact, New Zealand operates from the best of this system, because of our distance from the UK, the neutralness of the Royal Family and their non-political stance which makes them figureheads rather than rulers, and we function fairly independently and on our own anyway. I get irritated with people who argue that we need to become a republic because we need to grow up as a country. Grow up to be what?  

As a student of Sociology and a student of Forensic Psychology, I hope to channel my education and ultimately research into this area of power - and explore the science behind power and why certain people seek powerful positions. I can tell you that I have learned that all world leaders need to have a degree of narcissism - or a kinder way of putting it would be - self-belief confidence - to become a leader of a nation, be that a President or a Prime minister. On the psychopathy scale (which is different from narcissism), the top 4 historic leaders with strong psychopathic traits included King Henry VIII and Adolf Hitler. No surprises there perhaps. We also looked at the last fifty years of American leaders which was more a matter of who didn't have psychopathic traits than who did. While it sounds terrible to have psychopathic traits, it's actually not all bad. Some psychopathic traits can be beneficial in certain circumstances and an advantage to a nation who needs someone confident enough to make difficult and sometimes quick decisions.

The Westminster system works as a true democracy because no ruler - neither the Prime minister nor the Sovereign can have total power. One yields to the other and the Royal Family exist only at the consent of the people, for the people as our late Queen Elizabeth II said, 

“I have in sincerity pledged myself to your service, as so many of you are pledged to mine. Throughout all my life, and with all my heart, I shall strive to be worthy of your trust.” - Speech on her Coronation Day, June 2, 1953.

The position of Sovereign is inherited, which means the baton of power in the Crown is not sought by personal ambition, unless you're a malevolent second son; however, if second sons yearn for the power of the Crown - and we have seen a few famous second sons - Henry VIII was a second son, Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, they can only take the crown through a family tragedy or a dastardly deed. It has been done in history before (not by Henry VIII though, his was due to his brother's untimely death through illness) - and sometimes second sons are the ones who don't want the crown and end up with it - as the Queen's father did. 

But regardless of these reasons listed above, the main reason I think New Zealand needs to stay with the British Crown and the Westminster style of democracy is because of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The Treaty of Waitangi is unique to New Zealand and Great Britain and though its history is long and complicated, it was signed in 1840 between some Maori iwi (tribes) and the British Government representing the Crown (Queen Victoria at the time). 

There are legal disputes over the language used in the treaty which I won't get into here, but because of our agreement with Great Britain and the Crown, the Treaty of Waitangi protects Maori. If we do away with the Crown and our legal obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, what becomes of those safety nets for Maori? In 1995 Queen Elizabeth II apologised to Maori for the injustices done to Maori after the Treaty was signed, among those land confiscations which has had a significant detrimental impact on the wellbeing of Maori, because they were displaced and lost their way of life. 

What followed after this apology were financial settlements from the Crown towards Maori iwi and is ongoing today as Maori still dispute many of the historic injustices. There is recognition that the Treaty of Waitangi was used against Maori, but there is also acknowledgement now that the Treaty obligations can be honoured, must be honoured. Maori strive to always remind the New Zealand government of this. The Treaty is sometimes an 'inconvenience' to government, but because of that sacred pact between Maori and the British Crown, it must be adhered to. It is a unique agreement and I believe safeguards Maori against exploitation, further oppression and racism. 

To do away with the Treaty would mean one of two things: either the newly formed presidential government would have to give Maori what they want - full sovereignty and the authority to govern themselves or they would have to enter the Treaty of Waitangi into the new constitution and this could be tied up for years in debates and Maori would need (have) to be key players in all decisions.

I recognise that Maori ideally would like their sovereignty back, and in an ideal world this would be my preference, but I don't trust people in power to stay altruistic and the Treaty of Waitangi under the Crown, gives us a safety net. 

Share this: