Political science honours student, Graham Pirie, examines the case for a republican New Zealand

Canada Plans to introduce a National Anthem of its own to celebrate one hundred years existence as a self governing Dominion this year.

Following on the introduction two years ago of a National Flag without the traditional Union Jack incorporated in the design, the removal of the royal coat of arms from Government vehicles, and the abolition of the terminology Roval Mail, it seems that the Dominion is determined to demonstrate to the world that "apart from its invaluable legacy of British political and legal institutions, the fact remains that Canada today is no longer a British country" to quote the Toronto Daily Star.

For many years Canada has been rent by the cleavage between the commitment of the settlers of British stock to the Crown. and the violent antipathy to the Monarchy displayed by Canadians of French descent.

"Little England"

It has been suggested that distinctive National symbols which could encapsulate the common sentiments and identifications of its diverse peoples, would go a long way to promoting the National unity required for the continued growth of the young, prosperous nation.

The experience of Canada raises the question in the minds of New Zealanders Will we have to wait till the year 2007 AD before we realise that for all its origins, and the efforts of Edward Gibbon Wakefield to transplant a "little England." New Zealand is no longer a British Colony. Yet still the Union Jack flutters proudly over the Treaty House at Waitangi. Still the flag over our Parliament Buildings carries the emblem of British domination. Still at our concerts and theatres we are required to rise to the ponderous chords of the British band music "God Save The Queen."

With the ruins of the Empire around her and a slow but sure erosion of "ye olde aristocracy" and the classbased education system, coupled with creeping socialism at home, she may be more in need of the prayer in the future than in the heyday of the British Empire.

Nationalist sentiment (not the partisan philosophy of the present ruling group but that of the whole country" has received little organised expression in New Zealand so far. There was the so-called Republican Party centred in Christchurch. which grew out of the Committee for the Abolition of Royal Tours, but while agreeing with the sentiments represented by the group, the manner and degree of their expression seemed a little inappropriate given the norms of New Zealand society. Probably this did their cause more harm than good. yet the question has been raised. What can seriously be said for the as vet not clearly defined proposals of the Republicans?

New Zealand is a bi-racial society and we like to think the relationship is harmonious. However, emphasis on the. British ancestry of the pakeha in government is hardly likely to impress the Maori, who is gaining education and more social and self esteem. Can we explain the resurgence of the former Maori King movement and Its recent "entente cordiale" with the fast-growing Ratana Church? Are these developments in harmony with the notion of allegiance to a Queen on the other side of the world? Have many of our Maori people a dual allegiance or are these expressions of resentment at the way they have been treated by Britain and British settlers?

In early New Zealand, settlers came from other European countries and this cosmopolitan element has been increased since the earlier part of this century by the influx of displaced persons from two World Wars and a steady stream of Continental and Mediterranean Europeans as well as Pacific Islanders and a few new New Zealanders who have come to start a new life in a new country likely to accept with enthusiasm the concept of national unity expressed in allegiance to the Queen of one of their European neighbours?

Could not a head of State drawn from the ranks of resident New Zealanders be better used as the focal point of unity in this country? The fact that our GovernorGeneral-designate is a former New Zealander is probably a step in the right direction, yet it seems ironical that a New Zealander so long absent from his country and who apparently felt little obligation to contribute to its development should be so honoured when he is past his prime. The move is. at any rate, a change from the colonial practice of giving the cousin of some British lord or other a "tour of duty" as Her Majesty's personal representative in the south sea islands (or is it the Boy of Islands?) before he retires to his baronial castle.

We have recently been treated to the spectacle of our trade ministers pleading "New Zealand's Special Case" before the uncrowned heads of Europe as they debate the plans for their Common Market. Surely in Europe this must by now be a joke on a par with Neville Chamberlain's "little bit of paper" from Munich.

Our trade agreement with Australia has brought little more than a contemptuous big brother's "Thanks for your sweets." followed by a hefty blow to the jaw from which our politicians are still smarting.

Trading oyster

Are we really prepared to find markets elsewhere In the world or is our excessive devotion to Mother England and her children of the Commonwealth, coupled to our preoccupation with our cultural heritage in Europe, closing our eyes to alternative trading outlets in the East or even the Soviet republics and their satellites? Would we regard the world as our trading oyster if we were treed from the emotional attachment to a bygone era and its limiting associations which confine and direct our thoughtways.

Discussion has already appeared in the press on suggested amendments to our National Flag. Naturally, there Is little agreement as yet.

Similar conflict of opinion could be expected over an alternative anthem to "God Save The Queen." In this godless age it is doubtful II the establishment of God by the state Implied in the supplication "God Defend New Zealand" would be approved, Yet the anthem has a long tradition behind it and [unclear: h] this merit that the [unclear: sentim] expressed in its verse would meet with almost [unclear: unive] acceptance by Catholic, [unclear: Pr] testant, Jew, Humanist or [unclear: a] adherent of the [unclear: Orie] religions—not to mention [unclear: th] Minister of Defence! [unclear: Man] atheistical social theorists [unclear: a] agreed on the social [unclear: unti] of a unifying concept [unclear: an] have been able to conceive [unclear: o] God as the State. Society [unclear: o] the corporate entity [unclear: t] national group by which [unclear: th] individual is sustained—call [unclear: t] what you will.

It seems, therefore, that [unclear: th] concept could be retained [unclear: i] the anthem as a "hold [unclear: all] into which those of any [unclear: pe] suasion may read [unclear: whate] conception of a Unity [unclear: grea] than themselves, seems [unclear: h] them the most significant.

Some discussion of [unclear: o] future as a nation is [unclear: lo] overdue, and the expression [unclear: h] many opinions on this [unclear: iss] will at least help to [unclear: clari] some of the alternatives [unclear: avat] able. What about it?