Our crowned republic.(LETTERS)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: "Do other readers ... agree ... that the transition to a republic is worthy of serious attention now?" asks John Powers (Letters, September 2005).

This particular reader emphatically disagrees. Indeed, it is difficult to see any valid reason--other than the vestiges of colonial resentment--for abandoning a constitutional system that is as near perfect as historical accident can make it. Serious is hardly the word.

Both sides in the republican debate are apparently unable to grasp that a modern constitutional monarchy is already a republic in all practical senses. Charles James Fox said exactly that in describing the British constitution; and constitutional monarchy has advanced considerably since his time.

Throughout history, good intentions have so often been thwarted by the obstinate refusal of facts to conform to expectations; and Australians should be grateful for a constitution that combines so many accidental benefits.

It is salutary to compare our case with that of Britain. There, by long usage, the royal prerogative to dismiss parliament is exercised only at the whim of the incumbent prime minister.

Furthermore, Britain has in practice a single-chamber legislature, since decisions of the Lords can be reversed in the last analysis by the Commons. Failing that, the prime minister can simply pack the upper chamber with life peers (as Asquith was prepared to do when forcing through the Parliament Act of 1911).

The consequence has been that the British prime minister has evolved into an elective dictator, having usurped all the powers of the sovereign. Yes, he does need a tame majority, but what majority is not tame, when it comprises mostly jobseekers?