Malcolm Turnbull: The Australian Republic

As of late, the possibility of an Australian republic has been on the minds of many Australians. However, it’s clear that independence from the British will remain little more than a castle-in-the-air unless the republican movement refines their campaign. Mark Day, a writer for the Australian, positions Australian voters to believe that Malcolm Turnbull is the man with the power to make this change. In his rather convoluted article [“A republic? It’s all up to you, Malcolm,” 16/11/15], Day cautions that, whilst Turnbull may lead us to a beneficial republic, he will only be successful if he firstly makes constitutional amendments. Tim Mayfield, in “No easy road towards republic [The Australian, 23/9/15) also anticipates the rise of a republican

nation. With a rousing and optimistic approach, Mayfield attacks Craven’s controversial actions, contending that the only successful republic will be formed and maintain through unity towards a common goal.

Day is fervent in his argument that Malcolm Turnbull is Australia’s politician to ignite the republican race, and that it is indeed his “gift” to do so.

Day places the responsibility of enacting constitutional change firmly on the shoulders of Malcolm Turnbull, suggesting that he must decide when to “fire the starter’s gun on a new republican push.” This metaphor reinforces to Australian voters that once Turnbull brings the republican debate to the fore, that the time is right for major political changes to occur in Australia. Loaded language is evenly interspersed throughout the article in the writer’s bid to bring sophistication to his arguments. The loaded phrase, “orchestrate his destiny” is the writer’s attempt to persuade voters that Turnbull has enough political power and prowess to make the republican dream a reality. Whilst discussing the constitution, Day repeated uses the phrase “it does not,” in order to draw attention to the ways that the current constitution falls short. By doing so, he attempts to focus his audience’s attention on the deficiencies of our constitution, in order to convince them that multiple amendments must be made. With the knowledge that his audience is unlikely to have a detailed understanding of constitutional nuances, Day makes the generalizing comment that only those who “don’t know or care about the … provisions of the Constitution” would be in support of it. In this way, he hopes to give his audience the sense that he is well informed,

and therefore should trust his interpretation of the constitution.

Warningly, Day suggests that bypassing a constitutional amendment could be a huge downfall for all of Australia, even going so far as to suggest that “leaving the powers untouched” could possibly turn the country into a dictatorship.

Throughout his article, Day makes frequent appeals to the patriotism. His caution about creating an “avenue to dictatorship” plays on his audience’s pride in the freedom and diplomacy of Australia. In this way, he encourages his audience to associate a lack of constitutional reform with a shocking ramification for the nation, to convince them that change must occur immediately. In referencing both the current Irish model of government and New Zealand’s movement to “change the flag,” Day plays on the common desire to be bigger and better than other countries, appealing to modernity as well as nationality. The tactic of referencing can also be seen at the very beginning of Day’s opinion article, where he opens the piece with a reference to a key historical event that punctuated Australian politics “four decades” ago – the Dismissal – the only time in Australia’s history when “an elected government has been usurped.” He does so in order to set the trajectory of his article to alert his audience to focus on “what lies ahead” in regards to the debate on constitutional

change.

Mayfield proudly declares that the current republican movement has gained more traction than ever before, and that their “present momentum” is a sign of great things to come. The use of multiple statistics throughout his article suggests that “public support is strong” for the republican movement. Evidence claiming that “just under 50%,” are in favor of a republic suggests to readers that Mayfield’s current position is both successful and widely accepted. This is also a bandwagon appeal to any readers not yet in favor of the ARM, attempting to convince them to join the majority. Present throughout Mayfield’s comment piece are metaphors and cliché’s, allowing even the less informed audience to fully understand his statements. By stating that the “present momentum… is more than a flash in the pan,” Mayfield gives his audience a memorable and emblematic assertion that the republican movement has the potential to lead the nation. Mayfield also urges that the ARM has learned from the past, and is now actively avoiding the negative impacts of “divisions” amongst themselves. The use of “punters” and “plebiscite” within a sentence of one another is demonstrative of the balance Mayfield’s article strikes between well educated and congenial. Including both colloquial and sophisticated language in this piece is inclusive of all Australians, as it does not alienate any readers based on their knowledge of political linguistics. This aligns well with his argument that unity, on both local and national scales, is intrinsic to success.

Both articles welcome the possibility of an Australian republic in our near future. Whilst Day’s article addresses the importance of constitutional reform in great depth, in order to allow a more comprehensive understanding of political mechanics, Mayfield only touches on the subject. Mayfield and Day are also united in their decisions to maximize the impact of their arguments with the use of metaphors and imagery. Day’s article frequently employs the use of complicated jargon and veiled appeals to win over his audience, whilst Mayfield attempts to gain the reader’s trust by maintaining a colloquial, humorous tone and rudimentary statistical evidence.