Throughout modern history, the concept of monarchy along with its structural institutions of power, have been recurrently challenged by their theoretical antithesis, republicanism, as an anti-monarchical governance model that craves the reshaping and redefinition of the configuration of power in sovereign-based systems primarily by removing the unelected sovereign from the political system’s pyramid of power. From a structuralist perspective, one can argue that depending on the environment of political regimes in which republican aspirations are operating, the nature of such challenges materialize either as revolutionary (e.g. American Revolution, English Civil War, French Grand Revolution, Iranian Revolution) or as transitional (e.g. Persian Constitutional Movement of 1906, Australian Republican Movement). By placing the two categories in the context of late 20^th and early 21^th centuries’ waves of democratization and globalization, republicanism, within stable parliamentary democracies with a monarch as a head of state, falls into the second category. In this context, the political environment of New Zealand as a member of the British Commonwealth, an entity operating under the Westminster system with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, is a unique laboratory to observe republican dynamics and the direction of political change, whether to retain the status quo or, to what determinist republicans audaciously claim, to be the ‘inevitable’ establishment of a republic through a mechanical, irreversible transition. In this regard, this essay is an attempt to provide an objective assessment of the notion of inevitability of a republic in New Zealand through analysing three variables of symbolic, economic and public in the republican deterministic argument, a notion the essay formulates as the ‘republican equation’.

Comparative study of republican literature in Australia,[1] Canada[2] and New Zealand reveals that republican discourse generally draws on a ‘maturing process’ equation that consists of two arguments of symbolic, economic and  a public variable. While it also utilizes a heavily deterministic rhetoric that accordingly considers the demise of monarchism as inevitable and unavoidable, the level of certainty of equation can be decided by analysing each argument’s efficiency and determining the value of variables each introduces to the equation. In the equation, value quantities of ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘high’ and ‘very high’ can be attributed to each variable according to their positive contribution to the republic inevitability assertion. The values can be determined according to the country’s socio-political environment. In this context, the evolution of the republican debate in New Zealand which primarily began in the 1960s, was facilitated by various issues that contributed to the relevant variable’s values: evolving socio-political context (symbolic variable), change in New Zealand’s economic structure and changing relationship with Britain (economic variable) and New Zealand’s public attitude (public variable).  The arguments are constructed to contribute to each other in a top-to-bottom order: economic to symbolic, symbolic to public variable. An analysis of both arguments and the variable determines whether New Zealand will inevitably become a republic, or whether the republican eventuality is only a probable scenario in the country’s political landscape.

The economic aspect of the republican argument relies upon two premises: first, an irrelevant outdated normative argument about New Zealand damaging its economic dependency on Britain; and second, an effective descriptive assessment of New Zealand’s changing relationship with Britain. The first premise, primarily based on the W. B. Sutch’s critical study of New Zealand economy, cannot be seen as a systematic attack on the monarch or the office of the Governor General, but a criticism of New Zealand’s former economic policies towards Britain as a privileged partner. This economic analysis asserts that due to the exclusive economic partnership with Britain that resulted in a protected economy, New Zealand’s long-term social and economic development perspective is functionally limited.[3] Sutch argues that the country’s protected financial system and its de-facto colonial economic status is counterproductive, harmful and against the economic interests of New Zealand as a nation-state. While Sutch’s attempt to establish a logical connection between the influx of British capital, seeking to benefit from such a protected economic environment, and a British monarch as New Zealand’s head of state was seen as a fragile and contradictory endeavour even in the 1960s, it is entirely irrelevant to the current republican discourse due to the country’s Asian/Pacific-oriented economic policies.

In spite of its irrelevancy to current circumstances, republican advocates consider Sutch’s argument as an economic basis for the ‘inevitability argument’ by connecting it to the second premise. [4] It asserts that since Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1974 fundamentally undermined New Zealand’s privileged partnership and shifted Britain’s economic emphasis towards Europe, break with Britain was automatically and technically inevitable. While the second premise objectively describes an economic reality, it cannot be concluded that New Zealand’s new trade paradigm necessarily contributes to a republican process that removes the Queen as the head of state. This reductive argument is based upon the implicit assumption that economic interests would be the only reason for maintaining ties with Britain, thus ignoring politically-decisive cultural and symbolic attachments between New Zealand and ‘Mother Britain’.  Reviewing the content of the economic argument, the value of the economic variable in the equation is ‘very low’ and does not support the certainty or inevitability of a republican future for New Zealand. However, realizing its weakness, an amendment was later added to the economic argument asserting that in the aftermath of Britain’s entry to EEC, New Zealand must forge her own identity, thus a link to the symbolic argument.[5] Former Prime Minister David Lange skilfully summarized the economic argument with its cunningly developed amendment: “We suffer in this country from a lack of emotional focus. New Zealand will become a republic just as Britain will be blurred into Europe”.[6]

In contrast to the rather simplistic economic analysis, the symbolic argument attempts to draw its desired conclusions from a far more complex network of geopolitical obligations, strategic realities, policy developments, cultural transformation and political changes. Despite the premise’s abundance, the symbolic argument’s core inductive assumption that New Zealand’s former British identity was lost as the result of a series of events, thus the necessity of establishing a new national identity that require cutting all links with the British system of government. The triggering event being the post-1945 decline of British military and political power, New Zealand gradually developed new regional and trans-regional strategies. Militarily, the centre of emphasis shifted to the United States as the new primary trans-Atlantic ally, and Australia materialized by the 1951 ANZUS Defence Agreement. Stronger regional ties with the South Pacific and Far East states contributed to reshaping New Zealand’s foreign policy preferences. Culturally, the juggernaut of the American modernist culture, further empowered with the advancement of communication technology, undermined the fabric of the British identity in New Zealand society. New Zealand’s domestic environment was also affected by neo-liberal governments’ policies, globalization, internationalist values, the rise in the non-United Kingdom immigrants population (mostly Asian) and events such as the British neutral position in ‘Rainbow Warrior Affair’ in 1985.[7] Politically, and perhaps most importantly, the introduction of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation to replace simple plurality electoral system in 1993 led to what has been argued as ‘the demise of the Westminster system’ in a country which was previously known as the only true existing example of such system.[8]

In a post-MMP environment, republican discourse saw these events as irrefutable proof for the loss of British identity in New Zealand as a defining moment in what they perceive to be the country’s constant pace towards the establishment of a republic by choosing a democratically elected head of state. The symbolic nature of the argument reveals itself through the description of the logic for such a move: in the new political environment, it is ‘inappropriate’ for the Queen of England to exercise her powers in New Zealand.[9] Hardly such an emotional assertion can contribute to a deterministic perspective. In addition, despite all the aforementioned developments, the monarchy managed to stay above the pace of events, retaining its relative popularity in New Zealand public opinion. In this context, while the value of the symbolic variable is ‘high’ due to the validity of its premises, its effectiveness depends on its effect on the public variable. Although the essay recognizes the relevance and contribution of the symbolic argument, with its emotional tone and its concept of an inappropriate monarchy to the republican cause, it does not consider it as strategically effective in determining the ‘inevitability’ of the equation due to, as will be discussed next, its failure in influencing the public sphere.

Finally, the most crucial variable in the equation is New Zealand public opinion regarding the monarchy. The extent of public opinion’s support for or opposition to the notion of New Zealand becoming a republic plays the most decisive role in determining the future of republicanism in the country. In 2008, the New Zealand Election Study (NZES) released the results of its survey where 2700 voters were asked whether they prefer the status quo or should New Zealand becomes a republic with an elected head of state. While 49.6 percent of voters favoured the status quo and retaining the Queen as the head of state, 32.8 percent expressed their support for a republican system. In addition, the results of a former survey in 1999 showed that the Australian republic referendum did not affect New Zealand public opinion in favour of republic, with 62.2 percent of voters in favour of the monarchy. More recently, Research New Zealand (RNZ) performed another survey in March 2010, asking 756 people aged 15 and over whether New Zealand should become a republic. The results show a significant drop in support for the republican cause: 53 percent disagreeing with a republic against 31.7 percent in favour. However, people’s attitudes change quickly and long term predictions regarding the future trends in such a non-linear variable can be quite inaccurate and misleading. For example, public support for a monarchy can be raised by events such as royal visits or glamorous images of the recent royal wedding. From the political perspective, polls have significant messages. Maori, due to the conditions of the Treaty of Waitangi and position of the Queen of England in it, are still mainly supportive of the monarchy – a support which is unlikely to diminish soon. In general, it is evident that while public support for the monarchy is considerably high, the prospect of a New Zealand republic referendum will not produce desirable outcomes for the republican cause. Therefore, the value of public variable is ‘very low’.

In conclusion, in order to assess the republican argument in New Zealand, the essay broke down the assertion to its key elements, discussing each with an analytical approach. Through devising the concept of ‘republican formula’, the essay attempted to use three variables of economic, symbolic and public to decide whether the direction of socio-political changes in New Zealand is irreversibly toward the establishment of a republic. After analysing the contents of economic and symbolic republican arguments, the essay provided a relative assessment of economic and symbolic variables (qualitative variables). The value of public variable (a quantitative variable) was decided by reviewing surveys results. At the end, the values for the discussed variables are as follows: ‘very low’ for the economic variable; ‘high’ for symbolic variable (but rendered ineffective); and ‘low’ for the public variable. Considering such outcomes, the ‘republican equation’ that consists of these three variables does not produce a certain positive outcome. Thus, while New Zealand may become a republic in future, such an outcome is far from certain and requires changes in the current socio-political environment of New Zealand.

Bibliography:

Bolger, Jim, Daily News, 8 May 1997, p.6

Cox, Noel and Raymond Miller, ‘Monarchy or Republic’, in New Zealand Government & Politics, 5^nd edn, ed. by Raymond Miller (Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010)

Hancock, Linda, ‘The General Case for Embracing Social and Political Change’, in Restructuring Australia: Regionalism, Republicanism and Reform of the Nation-State, ed. by Wayne Hudson and A. J. Brown (Sydney: Federation Press, 2004)

Hudson, Jonathan, ‘God Save Us All’, Dominion Post, 18 July 1994, p. 12

Jesson, Bruce, ‘Republicanism in New Zealand’, in Republicanism in New Zealand, ed. by Luke Trainor (Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Ltd, 1996)

Lijphart, Arend, ‘The Demise of Last Westminster System? Comments on the Report of New Zealand’s Royal Commission on the Electoral System’, Electoral Studies, 6:2 (1987), pp. 97-103

Smith, David E., The Republican Option in Canada, Past and Present (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999)

Sutch, William B., Colony or Nation?: Economic Crisis in New Zealand From the 1860s to the 1960s (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1968)

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Neoliberalism in the UK and New Zealand: Validating Ideational Analyses
• Confronting Great Powers: New Zealand’s Nuclear Stance During the Cold War
• Does Presentism Work? An Evaluation of the Memory Politics of Fidesz
• Australia on the United Nations Security Council 2013-14: An Evaluation
• Are We Entering an “Asian Century?”: The Possibility of a New International Order
• A Critical Evaluation of Poststructuralism’s Contribution to Security