Yes. Though our de-facto head of state is an appointed figure, usually a senior military officer or lawyer who are rotated every five to seven years, the principle of monarchy is awful; that a useless white aristocrat who lives in England should be the head of state of Australia, based on a sovereignty stolen from the local people (who were massacred and oppressed in one of the most brutal acts of British colonialism) is not only disgustingly racist, it's also classist and prevents anyone who isn't Anglican from being our head of state. Then there's the problem of democracy; it isn't democratic to have a white English aristocrat inherit the country. That needs no explanation. The referendum to abolish the monarchy in 1998 was rigged, anyway; the conservative Parliament proposed the least palatable form of republic possible, one chosen by the Parliament. And even that unpopular form lost only by a small margin. I see no way in which the monarch or the monarchy benefits Australia; it's the embodiment of colonialist attitudes, racism, and class-oppression that mar Australia and will continue to mar it until we abolish it.
Um, yeah. I would still be, but the country wouldn't. Eating at Saladland doesn't make me a vegan. Unless you mean something else by that question.
Theoretically I'm a republican (The Netherlands are a monarchy since the last 200 years, before we were a republic). But the monarch has so little power over our country I don't really care.
I'm perfectly content having a monarch as head of state rather than a politician, it really wouldn't make much difference to how politics works in this country to change it.
I fully agree. Logically thinking, a republic makes more sence. However, when that means I get a democatically elected George Bush or Putin as head of state, I prefer the powerless undemocratic king we've got at the moment.
The thing I find strange about this, is that for some reason everyone I've discussed this with seems to be under the opinion that if you simply got rid of the monarch everything would be drastically different and all of a sudden our entire political system would be completely altered. Yet in the same breath they tell me that the queen has no actual power over anything and she's just the leader of the country. If she has no power, how could ALL the power suddenly shift to say, the prime minister...
Are you talking about someone who believes in conservative political views in America Republican or the more generalized view that a sovereign state should be ruled by the people via those they elect?
I am a republican. In the anti-monarchist sense, of course. I sincerely doubt I have to elaborate as to why.
Anyone living in the British commonwealth is basically in a Republic. We don't live in a real monarchy, and I think it's stupid that we even bother to continue with the tradition, and continue to call ourselves in a monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy sounds dumb, how about a Republic with a weird obsession to put some old lady's face on our money.
The term Republican as used in present day America- is arguably going to be inherently contentious. Me personally? I see the term "Republican" as synonym of Repugnant.and denoting foul wretches that are unworthy of anything but scorn. Or am I overly kind about them?
