Jeremy Moon is the Associate Professor & Head of Political Science, University of Western Australia.

Ruth Abbey is a Visiting Fellow from the Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton.

Republicanism has been used and abused in the service of many political causes from communism to democracy. The proponents of the Yes vote in the referendum harness the rhetoric of republicanism to nationalism: an Australian for Head of State. In itself this is no bad thing. The question is, to what extent is their model consistent with the ideal of republicanism they invoke?

The republican ideal is associated with two causes: one opposing arbitrary power and the other favouring popular participation in government. The first explains why republicans have traditionally opposed monarchies - especially non-constitutional ones. In a monarchy, the grounds and transfer of power are based on something as non-meritocratic as birth.

The second feature of republicanism - its belief that those governed should participate as much as possible in government - explains why republicans harbour a healthy suspicion of elites.

What is the relevance of republicanism to the referendum?

With reference to arbitrary power, some claim that Australia is almost a republic already. The crown's power is limited to appointing and dismissing the Governor-General or the Prime Minister and this only on the advice of the other. Neither the monarch nor the Australian office-holders alone can guarantee an outcome. But this arrangement doesn't meet the second principle of republicanism, for there is no role for the people. Only two are involved in these important decisions.

The Yes campaign argues that the public's opportunity to make nominations and the two thirds parliamentary approval of the PM's candidate expand popular participation in the appointment of the Head of State. But given the typical composition of Commonwealth parliaments and the discipline of the major parties, this decision also comes down to two people: the PM and the Leader of the Opposition. True, both are Australian but this hardly strikes a blow to elitism. When dismissing the Head of State, the power of party discipline would bring this down to one person, the PM. On this count, the referendum proposal increases the power of elites.

The Yes campaign tugs at the heart strings of Australian nationalism. But what does it really offer in the way of republicanism, other than substituting a foreign monarch with an Australian Head of State? The Yes campaigners seem to be fixed on nationalism for its own sake rather than reorganising government along republican lines. No wonder so many conservatives support this campaign!

Certainly an Australian Head of State is preferable to a foreigner. But if the proposed system further concentrates political power in the name of republicanism, we should vote No to this version. There is always the opportunity of creating an Australian Head of State worthy of the republican ideal. But winning power back from the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition would prove more difficult.