Australia, as it now exists, is a "constitutional monarchy". In other words, it possesses a Constitution, but despite have a Prime Minister and Parliament, it retains Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.
Claiming that monarchy is inequitable and unfair is a good start for an argument in favor of Australia becoming a republic, but to be convincing, you will need to expand on it.
First, you could point out that a monarch is...
Australia, as it now exists, is a "constitutional monarchy". In other words, it possesses a Constitution, but despite have a Prime Minister and Parliament, it retains Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state.
Claiming that monarchy is inequitable and unfair is a good start for an argument in favor of Australia becoming a republic, but to be convincing, you will need to expand on it.
First, you could point out that a monarch is not elected and does not earn a position, but is given it simply by an accident of heredity, something that does, in fact, seem inequitable. According to Forbes, Queen Elizabeth not only has a personal net worth of some $500 million, but also has free use of over $15 billion worth of real estate and an annual allowance of $13 million subsidized by taxpayers. Given the number of Australians living in poverty, having a monarch who plays a purely symbolic role in government so richly funded seems not just inequitable but a wasteful extravagance.
Next, as part of the question of unfairness, one might argue that for indigenous Australians, the British Queen is monarch of an imperial power that mistreated them and stole their land. It seems an extremely unfair relic of imperialism that they must have as a head of state someone who descends from people who treated them so badly.
Finally, it would be more fair for Australians to choose their own head of state rather than to have the head of a former colonial power still be an unelected head of state by an archaic tradition of heredity.
No comments:
Post a Comment