Kenneth Chaw

1) A perfect seperation of power would only happen if you banned political parties. One party with a majority in both houses will have control no matter how many divisions you have. Only by limiting the ability of any one group to dominate can you ensure there will be no overall control. 2) What benefit are you looking for? Did G. Bush(elected head) have any less ability to go to war than T. Blair(non elected head) without party or government approval. Elected or non-elected it is the person in the job who decides how it will work. 3) Australia is seen as independent except strangely by Australians themselves. The "some" people who say different must have a really bad inferiority complex and usualy have their own political agenda. I always thought independance was ealier.. http://www.thecheers.org/article_2061_Aust...dependence.html Australia's Secret Independence 4) I assume you mean the Queen. Do you want an elected head with no power or a hereditary head with no power? A republic doesn't have a head of state really. 5) Doesn't Australia have forced voting by statute? How can you have more democracy just because it's a republic? People vote and take part because they want to, even dictatorships have public participation. A republic will not make government or elections more interesting than any other form of government. 6) How can a republic be less or more of anything? It is the people not the form that determines most of your questions. Would you say America has less discrimination and more democratic rights than everywhere else? Australians of a certain political bent think that turning into a republic will heal all ills. Rubbish.... A republic is just one form of democratic government, it has good points and bad. No method of government is perfect so just changing won't fix any problems that aready exist. Hey jester, what I meant to say was actually if there is a directly-elected president... do you think it is more democratic? This could be because the President would be more accountable to the people as they were the ones who actually voted for the President itself. Also, a republic doesn't have a Head of State... you are right, but it has a President that combines both the role of both a Head of State and a Head of Government. Sorry that I didn't make it clear... Thanks for replying anyway, I appreciate it. -Kenneth-

Hey, I'm Kenneth and I am currently doing a research regarding the issue of republic. This is part of my active participation task in which I would like to enquire about your opinions. I have set up a poll and I hope that you could respond to that. However, do not feel obligated to reply if you do not wish to. Here are some of the questions: 1) Does a repulic form of government help to ensure a perfect seperation of power? In other words, does a republic prevent one body from dominating another body, such as the Executive Body dominating the Legislative Body? 2) If Australia becomes a republic, would a directly elected President benefit the Australian citizens? 3) Australia gained independence in 1986, however, do you agree with some people who argue that Australia is not seen as an independent nation by the rest of the world? 4) In your opinion, do you think that an Australian Head of State should replace the current Head of State? 5) Do you think that a republic would bring about a higher rate of democratic participation among Australian citizens? 6) With a republic, do you think that there will be less discrimination (eg. against women, age, race, religion, etc.) and more democratic rights? Thanks for even spending time to read through.I appreciate it. -Kenneth Chaw-