The coronation of King Charles III is an ideal time for Australia and New Zealand to take stock of the British monarchy and its role in national life — including certain myths about what becoming a republic might mean.

In particular, there is a common assumption that both nations must remain monarchies to retain membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. It might sound logical, but it’s entirely wrong.

There is no basis for it in the rules of the Commonwealth or the practice of its members. Australia could ditch the monarchy and stay in the club, and New Zealand can too, whether it has a king or a Kiwi as head of state.

Yet this peculiar myth persists at home and abroad. Students often ask me about it when I’m teaching the structure of government. And just this week a French TV station interpreted the New Zealand prime minister’s opinion that his country would one day ideally become a republic to mean he would like to see it leave the Commonwealth.

The United Kingdom’s first coronation in 70 years. Video: Al Jazeera

What does ‘Commonwealth’ mean?
The implication that breaking from the Commonwealth would be a precursor to, or consequence of, becoming a republic relies on a faulty premise which joins two entirely separate things: the way we pick our head of state, and our membership of the Commonwealth.

It would make just as much sense to ask whether Australia or New Zealand should leave the International Cricket Council and become a republic.

The confusion may derive from the fact that the 15 countries that continue to have the British sovereign as their head of state are known as “Commonwealth Realms”.

What we usually refer to as the Commonwealth, on the other hand, is the organisation founded in 1926 as the British Commonwealth of Nations. This is the body whose membership determines the competing nations of the Commonwealth Games, the highest-profile aspect of the Commonwealth’s work.

King Charles III is the head of state of the 15 Commonwealth Realms and the head of the international governmental organisation that is the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth has 56 members — but only 15 of them continue to have the king as head of state.

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Monday he personally favors his country becoming a republic, though it’s not a change he intends to push for as leader. https://t.co/1XEiFFtqPT pic.twitter.com/aftsZ0hHmV

— The Diplomat (@Diplomat_APAC) May 2, 2023

Joining the Commonwealth club
To be fair, confusion over who heads the Commonwealth is nothing new. A 2010 poll conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society found that, of the respondents in seven countries, only half knew the then queen was the head of the Commonwealth.

A quarter of Jamaicans believed the organisation was led by the then US president, Barack Obama. One in ten Indians and South Africans thought it was run by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Given the king’s overlapping leadership roles and the different use of the word in the contexts of Commonwealth Realms and the Commonwealth of Nations, these broad misunderstandings are perhaps understandable.

In fact, it was this ambiguity that allowed for the development of an inclusive Commonwealth during the postwar years of decolonisation.

However the confusion arose, it is also very simple to correct. The Commonwealth relaxed its membership rules regarding republics when India became one in 1950.

According to Philip Murphy, the historian and former director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, this decision was based on the erroneous idea that India’s huge standing army would underwrite Britain’s great-power status in the postwar world.

From that point on the Commonwealth of Nations no longer comprised only members who admitted to the supremacy of one sovereign. To make the change palatable, a piece of conceptual chicanery was needed. Each country did not need a king, but the king was to be head of the organisation comprising equal members.

Monarchy optional
Since then, the number of Commonwealth members has steadily increased to the 56 we have today.

As early as 1995, membership was extended to countries with no ties to the former British Empire. With the support of Nelson Mandela, Mozambique became a member, joining the six Commonwealth members with which it shared a border.

Rwanda, a former German and then Belgian colony, joined in 2009. It became an enthusiastic member and hosted the biennial meeting of states known as CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting).

The most recent countries to take up Commonwealth membership are the former French colonies of Togo and Gabon.

According to the Commonwealth’s own rules, membership is based on a variety of things, including commitment to democratic processes, human rights and good governance. Being a monarchy is entirely optional.

The new king offers the chance for a broader debate on the advantages of monarchy. But let us do so knowing Commonwealth membership is entirely unaffected by the question of whether or not the country is a republic.

Dr James Mehigan, is senior lecturer in law, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In Vanuatu, one key party in the government says it will boycott tomorrow’s planned session of Parliament.

That session is due to consider several constitutional amendments and the leader of the Reunification of Movements for Change party, former Prime Minister Charlot Salwai, said there had been no consultation with civil society.

He said it was the people’s constitution and they had the right to have their say before approval by Parliament.

The planned changes include:

• extending the parliamentary term from four to five years,
• allowing cabinet to have 17 members — up from the current 13,
• involving mayors in the selection process for the head of state, and
• amendments that will allow a broader definition of who qualifies for citizenship.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Any deferral of Papua New Guinea’s national general election 2022 will be unconstitutional, warns former Electoral Commissioner Patilias Gamato.

He said statutory timelines gazetted in the National Gazette for the national elections could not be breached to accommodate a deferral.

“It is important that the 2022 NGE is not deferred. Any idea about deferral will be unconstitutional,” Gamato said in a statement.

“The Head of State must not be misled and asked to [make] unnecessary changes [to] dates for the activities within the electoral cycle.

“Should the Electoral Commission delay the issue of writ by two weeks, where will those two weeks come from?”

“All processes are allocated times by law especially nomination, polling, campaign period, polling and counting.

“The campaign period is eight weeks minimum and 12 weeks maximum including nomination period by law.

Campaign period
“Campaign period cannot be reduced if they want to borrow from the campaign period.

“If they allowed for a buffer at the end of the process [it] is okay but they cannot go past the fifth anniversary of the 10th Parliament (5 years term).”

Gamato said that when the Electoral Commissioner advised the Head of State to approve the dates for the next election event, it was final and they must go by those dates.

He said the Head of State cannot be misled and asked to change the dates of the elections every now and then.

“The national government and the EC had five years to prepare for the elections,” Gamato said.

“We need to manage the electoral budget well and spend according to the phases of electoral activities, with the view to controlling the budget.

“It is a requirement that polling schedules and the roll must be approved by the EC and gazetted in the National Gazette.

Programme strictly adhered to
“It must be strictly adhered to the planned electoral activities such as nominations, polling and counting so that voters are not confused.”

He said the two weeks could not come from the campaign period.

“By law, the campaign period must be held a minimum of 8 weeks and a maximum of 11 weeks including the one week of nomination which brings to 12 weeks, you cannot change that allocated time,” he said.

“The term of the 10th National Parliament ends when the writs for the next election event are returned on or before the fifth anniversary of term.

“No government can conveniently try to extend the election to remain in office or in power after their term expires on the 5th anniversary of their term.’’

“The end of the fifth anniversary is the date the 10th Parliament [that] got sworn in 2017,” he said.

“Observing the statutory timelines are critical, especially when managing a major election event such as this.

“Funding in my view is sufficiently allocated by the national government.

“The EC just [has] to manage and work within the budget.”

The Papua New Guinea general election 2022 runs from Saturday, June 11, to Friday, June 24.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The new elections in Samoa called by the Head of State for this Friday, May 21, cannot proceed as they were not called under any legal authority and is accordingly voided, the Supreme Court has ruled.

So concluded the 28-page court ruling delivered by Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese this afternoon.

The other presiding judges were Justice Vui Clarence Nelson and Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala Warren.

“We respectfully tender our view and judgment that the Head of State does not have the power to call for a fresh elections as he did on 4 May 2021 for 21 May 2021,” said the Chief Justice.

The decision also highlighted that:

• There is no lawful basis for the Head of State calling for a new election on 21 May 2021;
• The writ issued under section 52 of the Electoral Act 2016, dated is not issued under any legal authority and is accordingly voided;
• The declaration made above means the result of the April 2021 general election and the relevant writs associated to the results continues to be valid and lawful;
• The Head of States attention is directed to the requirements of Article 52 and the Head of States obligations under the Constitution to call a meeting of the Legislative Assembly within 45 days of the holding of the general election.

The Faatuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi – FAST Party challenged the Head of State’s proclamation as unconstitutional and unlawful and the case was heard by the court last Friday.

Acted for best outcome for Samoa
The Chief Justice said that the Head of State provided his reasons for the proclamation and acted on what he believed was the best outcome for Samoa.

“There is no basis for any suggestions that the Head of State acted with malevolence,” the Chief Judge said.

Based on the issues raised from this legal challenge, the Chief Justice said that the court was mindful that the office of the Head of State should have access to public funding and resources and independent legal advice.

“In the 21st century, the burden of the office has greatly increased, and much of the work is concerned with implementing the government of the day’s advice, and in that regard it is appropriate for the Head of State to receive advice from the Attorney-General as mentioned in Article 44(2),” said Chief Justice Satiu.

As for costs, 20,000 talā (NZ$11,000) was awarded to the applicants to be paid within 30 days of delivering the decision.

Outside court, the FAST Party Deputy leader, Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao said the decision had opened up everything and he acknowledged the country’s support and prayers as well as the lawyers.

The FAST leading counsel, former Attorney-General, Taulapapa Brenda Heather Latū, said the decision meant no election as proclaimed by the Head of State.

FAST celebrating
In front of the court front steps, hundreds of FAST supporters in bright red were waving Samoan flags and singing hymns once the decision was relayed to them.

La’auli and the lawyers met with the supporters and thanked them for their support and invited them all to the FAST Party camp for the evening prayer service.

It was the FAST party’s second victory in court in one day. Later in the evening, caretaker Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi said on the state owned radio that the decisions would be appealed.

Tuilaepa also did not acknowledge the 26 members FAST claimed to have, saying the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) had 25 members to FAST’s 24 plus two Independents.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz