Confessions Of A Republican

Big news item of the week: Prince Charles was in New Zealand, visiting an endangered albatross colony, a down-trodden Maori neighborhood and school children. Lots and lots of school children. At a cost to NZ taxpayers of $50,000 per day, it's no wonder Kiwis were underwhelmed. But I was surprised at the outright hostility: he was consistently referred to as a "right Charlie," which (in local slang) is like calling him a dufiss, even an idiot. The small size of the crowds who bothered to come out to see him was constantly referred to, as was any inattention he paid them. And there were jibes a-plenty at Camilla, of course.

I think Prince Charles is the single best argument anyone needs for becoming a republic, but polls here consistently indicate that about 67% of Kiwis favor keeping Dominion status, i.e., leaving the British monarch as the head of state. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Seems to me more like, "Even if it is broken, leave it be, ignore it, and we can pretend the problem isn't there.") The current Labor government has republican leanings, but to really push in that direction is considered the political kiss of death.

One of the problems of becoming a republic would be the need to write a constitution, and Kiwis are skeptical about having a written constitution, too. From an American perspective, of course, I find this truly astonishing. After all, how do you even have a "constitution" which isn't written? They apparently have something called "constitutional conventions," which I gather are customs that have gained the force of law. But I can't read the phrase without picturing Jefferson, Madison, et al. sweating out the details in the heat of a muggy Philadelphia summer. (Since the NZ Legal System is part of the local bar exams I'm studying for, however, I'll have to find out eventually. But I'm putting that bit off as long as possible. Who knows, maybe after Prince Charlie's visit they'll change their minds?)

I did read a sort of libertarian argument against having a written constitution, that said having a single document which spells out people's rights and freedoms would somehow limit people's current rights and freedoms. The idea being that, under the current system, people somehow have more rights and freedoms than they would if those rights and freedoms were clearly spelled out somewhere.

To be honest, I didn't get it either.

Cheers,
Sandie