How a constitutional monarchy is a chain around democracy

In making this statement, I believe language plays an important role in determining which direction would provide the most suitable structure for the Australia of the future. This belief led me to first look up the dictionary definitions for "Monarchy" and "Democracy," as they are the two structural ideals of governance that Australia currently identifies with.

New Oxford American Dictionary definitions:

• Monarchy: A form of government with a monarch at the head. (The monarchy) the monarch and royal family of a country; the monarch is the focus of loyalty and service.

• Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. (Late Latin Greek demokratia, from demos, the people + kratia, power, rule).

From these definitions, we can easily identify how much these two forms of governance are at odds with each other. Their fusion does not strengthen democracy but instead weakens it by validating the monarchy's prime position within a modern society. The monarchy focuses on loyalty and service to the royal family, whereas democracy prioritizes power to the people, allowing loyalty and service to be directed toward their benefit.

For context, we must also recognize the nuance of what a constitutional monarchy means for Australia. According to Australian Politics, "This means that the head of State is a monarch, or sovereign, who is governed and bound by the Constitution" (Constitutional Monarchy, 1995–2017).

In Australia, the majority of power is restricted within the guidelines of the Australian Constitution, thereby diminishing the power of the head of state, making it more of a figurehead than a direct ruler. This brings us back to the question of language and what it represents in terms of influence, acknowledging that influence wields a certain amount of power in this context.

Having a monarch as a head of state validates undemocratic values, as the influence of the monarchy can undermine democracy. A position granted by virtue of birth inherently creates a class system that is fundamentally unfair. Even when restrained through Acts of Parliament, the prestige of the position still holds power through influence.

This influence is so entrenched in society that it can feel disloyal to even question it. This reveals the true power of influence in our lives. We give loyalty to individuals we do not truly know. Even if they are kind and respectable people, is that a legitimate reason to maintain them as head of state? There are many lovely Australians—shouldn’t they have a chance at the role?

A monarchy suggests that power and wealth are birthrights, while those born into poverty are deemed powerless as part of a natural order. This dynamic undermines Australia’s "fair go" ethos, creating an intrinsic inequality in society.

The question, therefore, is not simply monarchy or republic, but whether it is appropriate to continue enshrining this hierarchy of birth in our political system. The monarchy undoubtedly represents a significant part of Australia’s history, but perhaps it is better preserved in history books than in modern governance.

The First Peoples of this country have a history spanning over 50,000 years, yet much of it remains untold. Instead, we focus on the last 230 years. Is this emphasis because the British monarchy remains the head of state?

It would be arrogant to claim there is nothing to learn from a civilisation that has thrived in harmony with its natural environment for so long. Therefore, while we must remember history, it should be told in a way that fosters a fair and balanced society for all Australians. Furthermore, keeping a head of state that symbolizes the uninvited colonisation of this land seems blatantly unjust.

The significance of language becomes even more apparent when revisiting the dismissal of the democratically elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam on November 11, 1975. The Governor-General exploited reserve powers to dismiss Whitlam, undermining Australian democracy. According to journalist John Pilger, “Invoking archaic vice-regal reserve powers, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The Whitlam problem was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence” (The British-American Coup That Ended Australian Independence, 2014).

These reserve powers, as outlined on the Governor-General’s website, include:

• Appointing a Prime Minister if an election results in a hung parliament.

• Dismissing a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of Parliament.

• Dismissing a Prime Minister or Minister acting unlawfully.

• Refusing to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a Prime Minister’s request.

The language describing these powers, particularly “in certain circumstances,” highlights their undemocratic nature, leaving room for exploitation. Even if the royal family claims not to interfere in domestic politics, the existence of a Governor-General linked to the monarchy allowed this exploitation.

The monarchy’s influence perpetuates a class system and weakens democracy through the Governor-General’s reserve powers. This creates a political structure that undermines Australia’s democratic aspirations.

Finally, let us consider the definition of a republic: “A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”

This is a powerful democratic language, one that could strengthen Australia’s governance. While we may not all have the chance to be kings or queens, a republic allows every citizen the opportunity to aspire to become the head of state. The conversation then becomes: Do Australians prefer a weakened democracy tied to the monarchy or a stronger democracy under a republic?

In simpler terms: a weak democracy or a strong democracy—what would Australians choose?

Here is a poem inspired by the research while writing this essay, to purchase more of my poetry books please visit my shop page

Watch your language

Words weave in and out of our lives

Hold the power to tell truth or lies

Can build a bridge or a wall

Spoken in foolishness they divide

Conveyed in understanding they unify

This is why I carry a dictionary by my side

Disassemble the literal meaning

Enfold in modern discourse

Watch to see if it holds its burden

For there is no hiding intention in expression

Misuse reveals their mark

As much as missing lines are a sign

A stranglehold has prevailed in silence

Shoved into mouths conversations are lost So watch your language

For it communicates the composition of society