Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.davies.com

At what moment does a citizenry get sick of a leader and want him out? I’m out on a limb here, especially on the eve of the latest opinion poll results, but I reckon that moment might have come for John Howard.

I took holidays last week to be with a sick friend, so I read the papers and watched the TV news during a momentous week in federal politics without the need to form a snap judgement. For mine, the Hollingworth matter has put John Howard in a tight spot. Very tight.

Remember, it was Howard and Tony Abbott who elevated the status of the Governor General in the leadup to the Republic referendum. They cut down the Republican’s catchcry – that Australia should have its own head of state – by saying we already had one, the GG. This argument was run while the GG was Sir William Deane, a man of firm convictions who ran the dual themes of care for the poor and reconciliation with indigenous Australians throughout his tenure. He spoke at an abstract, general level of these matters while being photographed with the poor and Aborigines. In addition, he rose to the occasion in moving ways, in Switzerland and after the Childers fires, finding ways to express the essence of the feelings of most Australians as Australians.

Howard’s rhetorical ploy and Deane’s performance have combined to produce high expectations among Australians of their Governor-General, a person who, through Howard’s own arguments, has come to represent Australians at a symbolic level. The potential of this expectation was shown before the Olympics, when public opinion forced Howard to comply with the imperatives of his own rhetoric by reversing his decision to open the games when the games charter required the host nation’s head of state to do so.

Lurking behind this development are the reasons for the failure of the Republic referendum. I was opposed to the Republic as offered, on the grounds that if we were to simply change our head of state from the Queen to the Governor-General, without more, it was a waste of time, mere empty symbolism. More importantly, I couldn’t see how we could present ourselves to ourselves and the world as a Republic when we had no idea what we stood for as a nation. The culture wars have proved that Australians are still deeply divided about our core values and ideals, and the Hanson phenomenon showed we had grave difficulty understanding each other, yet alone agreeing on the basics of our identity. I thought that when we could agree on a bill of rights, or a statement of ideals to strive for, we’d be ready to proclaim ourselves a Republic, and that when that happened, a Republic would merely reflect where we’d got to, not vault us to where some of us wanted to be. The abject failure of both the Republic question and Howard’s preamble proved the point.

The republic debate strangely united traditionalists who wanted to preserve the monarchy and those who wanted a directly elected president. I think traditionalists are attracted to the idea of a person in politics who is “above” politics, who can look at and verbalise deeper national themes and concerns. I don’t think it’s correct to argue that they are happy with politics as it is, and therefore wanted no change. Rather, they had reservations about the state of politics, and wanted to keep a potential check on it.

In this, they were as one with the direct electionists. Being unhappy with the state of politics and their powerlessness under the current system, they saw no purpose in a mere symbolic changeover of power. They wanted a direct say in how the president was elected to give them another chance to influence politics.

In other words, the argument run by the republican movement – that nothing would change bar the symbols – was deeply unattractive to both traditionalists and radicals. It was the insider’s republic, the Republic for those who were happy they ways things were because the present system suited their interests, as distinct from their conceits, very well.

As fate would have it, Howard’s choice to replace the man his party detested blew up in his face. He wanted to appeal to the conservatism of his constituency, so who better than an authority figure in the Anglican Church? It was at once a slap in the face to a multicultural Australia, and an assertion that traditional values were well and truly back in style.

Yet post Deane, he also wanted the role downgraded to a merely ceremonial one. Hollingworth said absolutely nothing of interest during his tenure. He had no theme but to walk tall and behave politely until scandal broke, when he spoke often and loudly, proving himself utterly insensitive to the issue of child sexual abuse which finally engulfed him. Funnily enough, he saw no issue of moral integrity in his actions as Archbishop on a matter supposedly at the core of Christianity – protection of the weak from exploitation by the powerful. His tenure served not to entrench and enhance traditional values, but to focus attention on the collapse of those values within traditional institutions.

And in proving that he lacked grace, the public were reinforced in their preference for a Governor General who exhibited that rare quality.

Commentators now opine that Howard will opt for a super-safe appointment of someone worthy but without profile who will walk and talk with dignity and say nothing of substance.

Perhaps Howard agrees, but I think such an appointment would damage the monarchist cause. The appointment of someone like Tim Fischer, who wouldn’t be able to help himself in speaking publicly on matters of moment, would greatly assist Howard’s cause because it would meet public expectations of a wise elder as GG. Tim Fischer, respected across the political and geographic divide, would be, despite his Republican sentiments, an asset to the monarchist cause.

I also think it’s self-defeating for Howard to refuse any change to the procedure for appointment. The Republican model put to the people had only one change of substance – that the GG would be selected by a two thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament. This was minor indeed – in practice, the Prime Minister would decide on a person the opposition could accept, and the vote would be a formality. Tim Fischer would be readily accepted by Simon Crean, both on merit and to set a precedent for a Labor government to get acceptance for the appointment of a Labor politician like Bill Hayden.

If Howard agreed to change the procedure, he would establish the basis for a convention (a common political understanding) to develop that this procedure would be followed by future governments. In that case, the only matter of substance in the Republican model would be redundant. What chance then of a successful Republic referendum, given that the establishment forces supporting a Republic do so on the basis that they want no rupture in the status quo? Howard could even suggest a constitutional amendment to reflect the changed practice to be put to the people at the next election, thus proving that he was sensitive to the public’s desires, and forcing the republican movement to back his proposal.

Such a decision by Howard would therefore paralyse the republican movement for the forseeable future.

Sure, this move would give the GG some sort of mandate from the people through the Parliament, and the appointee could cause flutters among the political power elite if he or she was outspoken on sensitive issues. But so what? What on earth is John Howard afraid of? Another Deane? It’s his appointment now.

I think a dull appointment would be considered cowardly by the Australian people. Not only that, they would resent the lack of a voice above politics. The yearning for the voice of an institutional elder which flowered under William Deane would not be quieted. Instead, the lack of that elder, by Howard’s choice, would be keenly felt, and resented.

As if on cue, late last week Deane made a speech which, for the first time, directly criticised John Howard’s approach to governance.

“There is one challenge for the future leaders of our nation which I would particularly emphasise,” he told graduating students at the University of Queensland, ” the challenge of justice and truth, the challenge never to be indifferent in the face of injustice or falsehood.”

“It encompasses the challenge to advance truth and human dignity rather than to seek advantage by inflaming ugly prejudice and intolerance.

“Who of us will easily forget the untruth about children overboard? Or the abuse of the basic rights of innocent children by incarceration behind Woomera’s razor wire? Or the denial of the fundamental responsibility of a democratic government to seek to safeguard the human rights of all its citizens, including the unpopular and the alleged wrongdoer, in the case of the two Australians indefinitely caged, without legal charge or process, in a Guantanamo Bay jail?”

“Some may think that these and other similar unpleasant things should be left unmentioned. But if our coming generation of leaders refuses to honestly confront the denial of truth or responsibility which they reflect, our nation will surely be in peril of losing its way in the years ahead.”

Now most Australians professed not to care about the children overboard lie. They approve of the razor wire, and they don’t give a damn about the Guantanamo Bay detentions without charge. But they do like and respect Bill Deane, and I can’t imagine them agreeing with John Anderson that as a former Governor General he should button his lip. Bill Hayden certainly didn’t, and an 83 year old Sir Zelman Cowan expressed his support for appointment reform last week. I can also imagine some Australians not of Deane’s mind on the matters he raised giving at least a passing thought to his views.

It took two years for Bill Deane to wade into partisan controversy after he left the GG’s job, and his timing was spectacular. I think it’s an omen for Howard, a sign that he’d be wise to get out before the tide turns against him for good.

In the end, Hollingworth was Howard’s choice alone. He made a bad one, then backed him throughout his travails to the detriment of Hollingworth and himself. His insistence that Hollingworth’s decision to protect a pedophile priest was an “error of judgment” rather than a betrayal of his church and his duty as head of that church in Brisbane has left a sour taste in many mouths. His insistence that “community standards” in 1993 explained Hollingworth’s behaviour was an insult to many. The parroting by his media mates of the idea that the campaign against Hollingworth was really aimed at Howard, not Hollingworth, cemented a feeling among many that Howard has no real feel for the decent thing, but is merely paranoid.

And the vicious response to his humiliation last week – Government pressure on and encouragement of colleagues in Queensland and NSW to smear State Labor governments – could tarnish Howard’s reputation among his new true believers. To use this tactic to take pressure off Howard trivialises an issue of great concern to Australians at a time when they need their trust restored that governments take the matter seriously. The last thing they need is the Federal Government convincing them by foul means that everyone in politics is as bad as the other when it comes to covering up child abuse instead of trying to protect children from it.

I think Howard has come to believe, as Paul Keating did by 1996, that HIS is the voice above politics, and that the Australian people think he’s right. I think he’s wrong. I think people are starting to realise that he is a weak man, not a strong one, who cannot engage with dissent and instead seeks to muzzle it. I think his star is on the wane. I think Australians are on the verge of wanting to see the back of him, if they could only be even a little inspired by the alternative.

Simon Crean’s budget reply speech gave them a glimpse of an acceptable alternative. Stand by for tomorrow’s opinion poll.