As we near the end of this bacchanalia of royal mourning, it is reasonable to contemplate the coming hangover.
Will we simply sober up, leaving King Charles III to continue the British crown’s 250-year-old reign over this ancient land? Or will we, like children who have gobbled up not just one lolly but the whole bag, be looking for something to counter the sickly aftertaste?
The near-blanket coverage of the royal coffin’s passage, the suspension of the Australian parliament, the breathless testimony of all who saw the Queen merely pass by, has at least ensured that no Australian can be in any doubt about where out Head of State resides.
This week’s Guardian Essential report suggests the majority of us reached the point of saturation somewhere between day five and day eight of official ululations.
Like millions of Australians, I watched the Netflix series The Crown and make the following observations: 1) the Queen seemed like a good old stick; 2) she provided consistency through the second half of a turbulent century; 3) to the extent she exercised power, it was as counterpoint to a democratically elected government.
At its heart, The Crown is a story about the vestiges of colonial power that delivered untold suffering to peoples around the world in the name of progress: from the bloody partition of India to African conquest to the Australian frontier wars, the imperial death count could be even larger than The Crown’s international viewership.
Whether or not the House of Windsor is viewed as a paragon of virtue or a punctation point to an institution of misery is beside the point. The question for Australia is whether our rule of law should be vested in a family of aristocrats that lives on the other side of the world.
The answer to that question, since the 1999 referendum was deliberately sabotaged by monarchists, has been a resounding: meh!
In the first polling since the Queen’s passing that tepid support continues, with opposition to a republic actually rising a tad.
At 44% support and another 26% unsure this is sufficient to suggest there is a conversation to be had but nothing to give confidence of such a groundswell for change that it would not again be subject to similar opportunistic shenanigans from Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz et al.
More disturbingly for the republican movement, the numbers are even tighter when people are asked if Charles should be our king. Now this could be a sentimental bump given the emotions of the past fortnight, but it does seem to undermine the cunning plan that the death of the Queen would see support for the monarchy evaporate.
The enduring problem with the push for an Australian republic has been its lack of ambition. Convinced that people did not want major change, the 1999 bid failed because of its proponent’s refusal to recognise the desire of people to have a more direct say in their government.
Monarchists such as Abbott amplified the divisions by decrying the “politician’s republic”, tapping the anti-establishment strain that should have been driving republicans. It was two decades before Donald Trump mobilised America’s outsiders, but it was deployed to equally cynical effect.
In its lack of ambition, the Australian republican push has ended up missing the very essence of republicanism as a way of thinking about power, as articulated by Jamie Susskind in his recent book The Digital Republic.
“In essence to be a Republican is to oppose social structures that enable one group to exercise unaccountable power, also known as domination, over others,” Susskind writes.
“They reject the institutions of absolute monarchy, not just the flaws of particular kings. They fight for tenant’s rights, not just for more beneficent landlords. They demand legal protections at work, not just kinder bosses.”
Republicanism is not just about who wears the crown – whether the titular head is a hereditary monarch or an appointed figurehead. It is about where power is vested – and critically how it is vested.
Though this lens, the Indigenous voice to parliament is an exercise in republicanism; an interruption of existing power structures to give those most vulnerable to its failings direct input into decisions that affect them.
It sits on a continuum that would also vest absolute power in the hands of Australian citizens, whether through a direct vote for a representative or some other mechanism which we decide, collectively, once we have determined this is the course to take.
The discussion on what this could look like could – and should – in itself be an expression of republicanism, actively engaging citizens on how they wish to be governed.
Around the globe, parliamentary democracies modelled on 19th century republican revolutions against sovereign power are floundering in the face of the concentration of power in global corporations and the ubiquitous tech platforms.
Elections are gamed by populists who tap the rich vein of dissent at these injustices, moneyed lobbyists stand between the public and their representatives, civic institutions lay fallow while trust in our system collapses.
In the face of these pressures, there are much bigger republican discussions to be had than whether our head of state should be called a governor general or a president and whether they should be appointed or chosen from a shortlist.
A republican debate should focus on the spaces between government and the people and make these fora inclusive and vibrant and not a political fight club.
It could entrench integrity, demanding transparency of government contracts and political donations, guaranteeing real workplace democracy and installing guardrails against the microtargeted trade in misinformation.
A genuine republican debate would question whether we’d benefit from ongoing input into the process via deliberative democracy models, citizen juries, citizen-initiated referenda, anything to break the civic inertia of the status quo.
The rise of the teal independents is an optimistic reflection of this will for a greater civic engagement, ready to be tapped in the name of building a better, fairer and more inclusive nation, at peace with its past and ready to embrace its future.
If we are going to embark on our republican journey, let’s not be humble in our ambitions.
• Peter Lewis will discuss the findings of the latest Guardian Essential Report live at 1pm today with Guardian political reporter Paul Karp and Australia Institute depute director Ebony Bennett. Free registration here.
