Can Responsible Government Survive In Australia

Despite remarkable similarities, little attempt has been made to compare the political development of colonial-era Australia and Canada. Both nations were born as British colonies and used violent and non-violent means to agitate for democratic freedoms. Republicanism and Responsible Government explores how these sister colonies transformed the very nature of the British Empire by insisting on democratic self-rule. Focusing on the middle of the nineteenth century, Benjamin Jones explores key points in colonial Australian and Canadian history - Canada's Rebellions of 1837-38 and the Durham Report, and Australia's anti-transportation movement and the Eureka Stockade. Previously, historians have looked to liberalism when explaining radicalism and democratization. Jones, however, contends that Canadian and Australian radicals and reformers were influenced by the ancient political philosophy of civic republicanism, with its focus on collectivism, civic duty, and virtue. William Lyon Mackenzie and John Dunmore Lang, he argues, did not champion republicanism to achieve individual rights but to create a virtuous society free from the corruption they saw in the status quo. Republicanism and Responsible Government challenges traditional interpretations of key events in Australian and Canadian history and shows that even though both nations remain constitutional monarchies, republican ideas have shaped their foundations since the earliest days of settlement.

A systematic examination of how the Senate actually operates covering topics which include the design and operation of Australia's system of government, an analysis of the confrontation betwen the Senate and the house of Representatives in 1975, proposals for reform, the republican debate, minority parties and the balance of power.

There is a great difficulty in the way of a writer who attempts to sketch a living Constitution-a Constitution that is in actual work and power. The difficulty is that the object is in constant change. An historical writer does not feel this difficulty: he deals only with the past; he can say definitely, the Constitution worked in such and such a manner in the year at which he begins, and in a manner in such and such respects different in the year at which he ends; he begins with a definite point of time and ends with one also. But a contemporary writer who tries to paint what is before him is puzzled and a perplexed: what he sees is changing daily. He must paint it as it stood at some one time, or else he will be putting side by side in his representations things which never were contemporaneous in reality.