![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Identity without politics
Dec. 2nd, 2017 11:03 amAndrew Sullivan says some things I've sort of agreed with for a while, some things I definitely disagree with, and one thing that articulates something new that I hadn't put my finger on before:
As a New Zealander, I am very much in favour of constitutional monarchies, precisely because a monarch can symbolise a country in an apolitical way. I look at the struggle Americans have when choosing a president, the tension between "Who represents us?" and "Who speaks for us?" and "Who will implement policies that I agree with?" Putting all three of those things in the hands of the same person was a mistake. A country needs someone to articulate who they are and what they stand for without that being explicitly a means to a political agenda.
A country is not just its politics. Indeed, we'd be pretty messed up if it was! Politics will always be somewhat grimy stuff. But nationality is an identity, and identities are real and important things. Being able to locate a central identity for a country that isn't allied to a specific political cause is really important. A figurehead can help with that.
Now, I will freely admit that both Britain and New Zealand have (completely different) reasons why they might not want the Queen to be that figurehead. The British note that she's pretty expensive. New Zealanders pretty much get her for free (yay!), but on the other hand, she's distant and not really one of us (boo). We have a local Governor General who is generally apolitical, albeit nominated by the government before being confirmed by the Queen. If we ever become a republic, we'll probably re-work that role somehow, and there are definitely ways of doing that which could work well.
Still, for now, if some of my fellow New Zealanders want to direct their nationalist energy towards a distant but glorious figure who has absolutely no politics whatsoever, well, I'm very happy for them to do that, and I'd be hesitant about changing that just in case we end up with nationalism of a more pernicious kind...
[The Queen] gives an apolitical meaning to being British.
As a New Zealander, I am very much in favour of constitutional monarchies, precisely because a monarch can symbolise a country in an apolitical way. I look at the struggle Americans have when choosing a president, the tension between "Who represents us?" and "Who speaks for us?" and "Who will implement policies that I agree with?" Putting all three of those things in the hands of the same person was a mistake. A country needs someone to articulate who they are and what they stand for without that being explicitly a means to a political agenda.
A country is not just its politics. Indeed, we'd be pretty messed up if it was! Politics will always be somewhat grimy stuff. But nationality is an identity, and identities are real and important things. Being able to locate a central identity for a country that isn't allied to a specific political cause is really important. A figurehead can help with that.
Now, I will freely admit that both Britain and New Zealand have (completely different) reasons why they might not want the Queen to be that figurehead. The British note that she's pretty expensive. New Zealanders pretty much get her for free (yay!), but on the other hand, she's distant and not really one of us (boo). We have a local Governor General who is generally apolitical, albeit nominated by the government before being confirmed by the Queen. If we ever become a republic, we'll probably re-work that role somehow, and there are definitely ways of doing that which could work well.
Still, for now, if some of my fellow New Zealanders want to direct their nationalist energy towards a distant but glorious figure who has absolutely no politics whatsoever, well, I'm very happy for them to do that, and I'd be hesitant about changing that just in case we end up with nationalism of a more pernicious kind...