Award of knighthood may cost Abbott dearly

Award of knighthood may cost Abbott dearly

When Australians woke up on their national holiday on Jan 26 to discover that their Prime Minister had awarded the country's highest honour to the 93-year-old husband of Britain's Queen Elizabeth, many wondered if it was actually April Fool's Day rather than Australia Day.

The decision made personally by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to award a knighthood to Prince Philip was greeted in Australia with a mix of collective shock and hilarity. "Who needs satire?" tweeted Sydney resident Kevin Airs.

It is a decision that could cost Mr Abbott his job.

When it became clear that the mockery was not abating and was leading to questions about his political judgment, Mr Abbott backed away and admitted that most Australians would regard the decision as a "stuff up".

He promised in a national address to make no more "captain's calls" and to allow a committee to decide future awards.

But the damage was done.

Mr Abbott's decision was the catalyst for a backbench revolt and then a leadership vote last Monday, which he won by an unconvincing 61-to-39 margin. If, as many analysts believe, he is eventually ousted as leader of the Liberal Party, the knighthood fiasco will be seen as a turning point.

This was not a decision that cost jobs or wasted money or involved a political scandal, but, even according to many of his own MPs, it lost Mr Abbott the respect and trust of the Australian public.

It suggested that the Prime Minister was out of touch with the changing face of his country - a 114-year-old nation that has developed a character that is less and less consciously connected to its historical roots or its past as a British colony.

As a staunch conservative and former monarchist leader, Mr Abbott has long insisted that Australia's strong ties to the British monarchy are part of the nation's "fundamentals".

But the backlash against the knighthood decision suggested a failure to grasp that his nation has evolved, and that a decreasing proportion of Australians today regard the monarchy as a fundamental part of the country's culture or future.

This changing view is partly a reflection of the changing face of Australia. The nation has become increasingly demographically diverse, particularly because of rising immigration from across Asia.

The last census in 2011 showed that Mandarin had overtaken Italian as the most common foreign language spoken at home, while a third of foreign- born people in the country were from Asia, up from 24 per cent in 2006.

Culturally, too, the nation has changed. Coffee has replaced beer as the national beverage, while Thai, Japanese and Vietnamese food are now essential parts of the nation's cuisine.

Meanwhile, some of the functions that Britain used to play in Australian life have been supplanted by the United States. Like around much of the planet, Australia's popular culture is heavily influenced by the US and Hollywood.

And, strategically, Australian leaders have long insisted that the alliance with the US - rather than the bond with Britain - is the bedrock of the nation's defence outlook.

Ties with Britain remain strong. But Australia's identity has broadened - and these changes have reduced the relevance of the historic ties to Britain.

It is this growing irrelevance that perhaps best explains the prevailing attitude of many Australians towards Britain and the monarchy - an attitude that is currently governed, above all, by a profound sense of apathy.

Many Australians no longer enthusiastically celebrate the ties to Britain - but they also do not show any particular enthusiasm about abandoning them.

An opinion poll in February last year showed that about 39 per cent of Australians supported becoming a republic, 41 per cent supported the monarchy, and 19 per cent had no opinion. This actually marked a dip in support for a republic, which was backed by 45 per cent of the people in 1999.

Interestingly, the issue is not seen as a progressive badge for the younger generation, and older people tend to be more supportive of a republic than those aged 18 to 34. Most analysts believe this is because of the popularity of Britain's Prince William and his younger brother Harry.

But the republic issue was barely on the political radar - until Mr Abbott put it there.

The 1999 republic referendum failed partly because of a failure to produce an agreed model for appointing a president. But the failure hardly marked a ringing endorsement for the monarchy.

Instead, it seems, many Australians do not want a particular change in either direction and would prefer their leaders to focus on more pressing problems.

There has been no great push to remove the Queen's image from Australian coins and dollar notes, or to remove the Union Jack from the flag. It is perhaps inevitable that Australia will one day change these symbols. New Zealand and Fiji recently moved to take the Union Jack off their flags, though both nations are ruled by avowed monarchists.

Earlier this year, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said the move was "nothing personal" against Britain but was about strengthening New Zealand's self-image.

Australians will probably move in a similar direction, especially as some 200,000 immigrants arrive each year, many of whom do not come from Britain or the Commonwealth.

But the changes are likely to come gradually, and Mr Abbott has instead attempted to forcibly push back the tide. It is in this sense that he poorly misjudged the public mood and left himself open to political attack as being out of touch and obsessed with the past.

His two predecessors, Mr Kevin Rudd and Ms Julia Gillard, were republicans, but both made it clear they were in no hurry to push for constitutional change. Ms Gillard said she believed no push should be made till after the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign.

Mr Abbott's main rival as Liberal leader is Mr Malcolm Turnbull, who was the public face of the republican movement during the 1990s. Both men faced off regularly in debates over the republic. But Mr Turnbull, even if he becomes prime minister, may well decide to move cautiously.

If anything, the response to the knighthood decision may make him more convinced that, as the country's identity evolves, the public does not want its political leaders to force the issue.

jonathanmpearlman@gmail.com


This article was first published on Feb 16, 2015.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of web browsers.