Republic Versus Monarchy - part two, section one
[Arguments for the Monarchy & the answers to them]



The Monarch creates unity and stability


Having a Monarchy does not create or ensure a nation's stability.

Having the U.K. Monarch as Head of State has not ensured stability in:
  1. Northern Ireland, racked by internal fighting over the issues of religion, politics, and independence.
  2. Fiji, which has had two recent military coups (in May 1987 and September 1987).
  3. Grenada, which has also had two recent coups (in March 1979 and 1983), then invaded by the U.S.(32)
Indeed, the presence of a Monarch has not quelled the strong separatist movements in Scotland and Wales (according to public opinion polls, over 50% of Scots now favour full independence).(33) Britain itself has many times in its history had internal fighting and rebellion, on many occasions linked to Monarchical politics. The same applies to the history of many other nations.

Some say that Australia itself has disunity caused by the Monarchy versus Republic debate, however, once we have attained and established a Republic, it would become a dead issue.

The fact of the matter is: it is the nature of a people's society, culture, and politics which makes or breaks a nation's stability, not whether they have a Monarch or not.




Republic Versus Monarchy

Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com/~natinfo