Nationalism, and the quest for a national identity, have dominated the Australian Republican debate. Those in favour of an Australian Republic, whereby the Queen is removed from the Constitution, the Governor General replaced by a President appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by parliament, are regarded as the 'true' Australians. Those against the Republic are 'un-Australian'.

The goal of the Australian Republican is merely that 'our head of state must be one of us,' (Keating 1995:16) a reflection of 'the unquenchable Gaelic resentment of the English yoke.'(Caton 1992:39) The push towards an Australian Republic is not the result of a constitutional crisis where the rules for governing the nation were seen as out-dated, unworkable, or intolerable. Nor did it result from genuine desire to reform the system of government to embody traditional notions of republicanism or democracy. Australian Republicans reject the crown not because it is anti-republican, but because it is English.

An examination of traditional republicanism and democracy reveals the extent to which they are both , for the most part ignored, in the Australian debate. With the exception of academics like Patrick O'Brien (1993) and Andrew Fraser (1993), there has been little interest in reforming Australia's political system to adhere more closely to the principles of both democracy and republicanism.

Phillip Pettit (1992:29) argues, that Roman Republicanism played an integral role in the creation of the political culture of the West, embodied in both the American and English Revolutions and, for a time at least, in the French ¹ . Pettit (1992:29) identifies three themes that characterise republicanism. Firstly the anti-monarchical motif, secondly the rule of law, and finally the rule of virtue.

The anti-monarchical motif was premised on the notion that a Republic is a state without hereditary rulers, a state without a Royal Family. In the context of Rome the notion of a state without hereditary rulers is a fallacy. The governing class consisted largely of those famous families whose scions held office as Senators, Consuls and Praetors. Ancient Rome had a defacto class of hereditary rulers. Pettit (1992:29) observes that the anti-monarchical-motif was essentially ' an expression of the deeper idea that Republics are meant to be governed by the rule of law'. The Roman experience of monarchs consisted of absolute rulers, tyrants like Tarquins, who were governed by no law but their own. In response the Romans enshrined the rule of law at the expense of the tyrant's whim.

The rule of law implies that no man may stand above it (Pettit 1992:29). The strong faith displayed by the Romans in the rule of law suggests an inherent fear of concentrated power. It follows therefore that power, once constrained by law, must also be constrained by check and balance. Law and institutions were to thwart the tyrannical whim of any public official. Bound by the rule of law, check and balance, scrutiny and accountability, the office holder must also submit to the rule of virtue.(Pettit 1992:29) Montesquieu observed, ' in despotism fear is the spur; in monarchies, honour; in Republics, virtue.'(Dahl 1989:25) The Republic, like the Greek democracy, requires those with a sense of public duty, the commitment to stand against corruption- in essence, civic virtue.

Pettit (1992:30) argues that the three themes of Republicanism combined to create an idea of personal liberty best defined as freedom from interference. It is by being 'shaped by law, constrained by check and balance..informed by virtue, that people can be free'. (Pettit 1992:29).

Robert Dahl (1989:25) also contends that civic virtue is an essential element in a Republic, making the observation that in the ' republican view the major threat to civic virtue is generated by factions and political conflicts'. To extinguish, or rather, to lessen this threat, Republicans, Dahl argues (1989:25), assume that the people are not a homogenous body. Rather, they are divided, pursuing sectional interests and short term goals- conflict is therefore inherent. Crucial is to accommodate this conflict is checks and balance, the extension of which is mixed and balanced government.

The idea of mixed and balanced government was to permeate the British Constitution following the Glorious Revolution. For Montesquieu the British had, with the Monarch, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, 'was the very epitome of a perfectly balanced system of government.' (Dahl 1989:25)

Dahl (1989:24) observes that Greek democratic thought, while in some respects antithetical to it, shared several cornerstones with republicanism. Both adopted the idea that man is a social and political animal, furthermore , to be a good man one must also be a good citizen. (Dahl 1989:24) Republicans shared the Greek democratic belief that men must be equal before the law, and that a political system is desirable and legitimate only when the people participate in government. (Dahl 1989:25)

During the eighteenth century Greek democratic thought would fuse with elements of Republican thought, the product being the democratic republicanism of men like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson (Dahl 1989:26). Democratic republicans, finding the mixed and balanced government of the aristocratic republicans dubious, embraced the idea of a separation of powers. (Dahl 1989:27) The executive, legislative, and the judiciary had to be located in separate institutions if the concentration of power was to be avoided.

Aristocratic and democratic republican traditions, after a process of evolution, enshrined representative government and political equality. Representative institutions to balance the interests of the people, and political equality to protect the many from the few and the few from the many. For Robert Dahl (1992:13), Greek democratic thought, the Republicanism of Rome, representative government and political equality are the four underlying themes of modern democracy. It is not the task to identify the exact impact of these traditions on the Australian political institutions but rather examine their role or lack thereof in the Australian Republican debate.

Republicanism, as we have seen, is more than a dislike of monarchy. It is the dislike of an absolute monarchy, absolute power. The Crown, held in check by the rule of law and the representative bodies of government is perfectly compatible with the traditional Republican ideals. On the other hand , Australian republicanism, typified by the Australian Republican Movement, is merely a dislike of monarchy, more so because it is English.