The world is a very different place today to the world of some centuries ago. Things that were once the norm are not acceptable to modern society. For instance, up to the beginning of the 20th Century, exploration and subsequent colonisation by the Europeans was seen to be beneficial, bringing civilisation to primitive parts of the world and was much desired, however these days, colonisation is a dirty word and is considered to be nothing more than an act of war. The same goes for acts of religious persecution such as the Spanish Inquisition, which was state sanctioned at the time, but considered totally abhorrent and barbaric today.
Many centuries ago, people who wished to rule raised armies and slaughtered anybody who opposed them and installed themselves as absolute monarchs. They and their offspring retained the power to rule, unless they in turn were deposed by stronger aspirants, who in most cases managed to slaughter the incumbents and their followers to ensure that no opposition could threaten them. Many monarchs claimed to either have divine guidance or that they were placed in power by God himself. Of course we know that this is certainly not true.
Then along came the modern-day principles of democracy, human rights and the equality of man. Just as the concept of colonialism had passed its use-by date, so did the concept of monarchy, however monarchies still exist in many countries. The problem with monarchs, even those that are literally only figureheads, is that their very existence denies all modern principles of democracy and equality.
In a true democracy, every person who desires to represent a constituency must be directly elected by the people. This means that theoretically, every citizen has the right to be elected to any political office, including the position of head of state and every citizen has the same political franchise. Unfortunately this is not true of any monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy such as Australia, because the only people who can become monarchs, and thus heads of state, must literally be born into a royal family and they acquire the monarchy literally by an accident of birth and nothing else.
A monarch such as the Queen of England is privileged far beyond any citizen. She is literally untouchable by law and has the power to dismiss duly elected governments. This was graphically demonstrated when by the Queen's consent, the Whitlam regime was kicked out of office in Australia in 1975. She and that bunch of unelected parasites known as the extended royal family are supported by millions of dollars extracted from the taxpayer every year.
And how did the Queen of England and Australia get such power? Did she deserve it? Did she earn it? Did she place herself before the citizens of Australia and ask if they wanted her to rule over them? Did she have any qualifications whatsoever that would have entitled her to assume such a powerful position? The answer to all those questions is a resounding NO. The Queen occupies this exalted and powerful position for no other reason than an accident of birth. She was merely fortunate enough to have been born into a particular family and for that, she can literally topple elected governments. Is this democratic? Of course it is not, especially in the 21st century, where such anachronisms should have been eradicated into extinction long ago.
Logically, if there is even one person in a country who is literally above the law and who has such incredible unearned and unelected political power, then by definition, that country cannot be a democracy. This is why a truly democratic society can only exist where, without one solitary exception, all citizens who aspire to public office or political power are duly elected by their peers and not attain such positions by accidents of birth. Nothing less will suffice. This is why as long as Australia has a monarchy, constitutional or not, it is not a democracy by any means.
Every citizen who wishes to travel to other nations needs a passport. But the jet-setting Queen has travelled around the world 42 times, visiting 120 countries during her 90 years - and all without a passport. The monarch has travelled to more than 60% of the world's 196 countries.
If Australia was a democracy where everybody was truly equal and even our head of state was just one of the citizenry, then that person would need a passport to travel overseas. The fact that the Queen does not need a passport merely proves the fact that Australia is not - and cannot be - a democracy until the monarchy is abolished.
So not one single Australian person can qualify to become the head of state of Australia, which is a sick joke.
The Queen of England, the current Australian Head of State, can be described as the following:
The above attributes are a complete anachronism in a 21st century modern nation and the concept of a monarchy in this era is as repugnant as the concept of colonialism.
Very few people read the Australian Constitution, but even a cursory examination reveals that the unelected Queen of England makes a mockery of the concept of democracy in Australia. These clauses prove that as long as Australia lives under a monarchy, democracy does not exist.
These sections of the Australian Constitution prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Australia is not even remotely a democracy, simply because an unelected monarch and her unelected representative can override all laws passed by the Australian parliament, appoint and dismiss the judiciary and exercise power over the Australian people.
This means that even if a law is passed through both houses of the Australian Parliament, the Queen has the power to cancel it by decree. Is this democracy at work? Of course not - and Australia will NEVER have a democracy as long as it remains a monarchy and an unelected person who is our head of state merely by a fluke of chance and accident of birth has this power.
There are many other parts of the Australian Constitution too numerous to mention that make a mockery of the notion that Australia is a democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
On reading the Australian Constitution, it is amazing to find a provision that allows for racial discrimination, as follows:
Of course this provision would not be exercised in the modern era, but just the fact that it still exists in the Australian Constitution makes this document almost irrelevant and certainly nothing to be proud of.
The republic debate in Australia has been derailed many times by extraneous, illogical and senseless argument, along with the monarchist agendas of people with high political power. This was compounded by a referendum that saw the vote lost, purely because the Federal Government, in harmony with the Australian Republican Movement, only offered a republic model that did not allow for a popularly elected head of state. This was so repugnant to Australian voters, even staunch republicans, that the referendum was lost for that reason alone. All surveys taken so far have clearly shown that Australia would have easily become a republic, had the model allowed for a president elected directly by the people.
There is no doubt whatsoever that eventually Australia will discard its colonial connection with the United Kingdom and become a totally independent republic with an Australian head of state. The citizens have indicated clearly that they want a directly elected president and it is now just a matter of time before Australia becomes a true democracy instead of the plutocracy it is today.
Just as important, when Australia becomes a republic, a Bill Of Rights needs to be included in a new Constitution, in order to enshrine the rights of Australians in the highest law of the land. At the moment under the present Constitution, Australians have very few rights, not even the right to freedom of speech and expression and that is so wrong. Under a republic, Australians should be afforded a Bill Of Rights that guarantees fundamental immutable rights under all circumstances.