Language Analysis – Republic or constitutional monarchy

In the online article, the ‘no’ case against a republic and ‘for’ our constitutional monarchy, Selwyn
Johnston asserts that Australia should not become a republic and should remain under the
Commonwealth. Johnston passionately and forcefully explores the Constitution of Australia and
criticizes the flaws of a republic.

The writer points out that the constitution allows the governor general to dismiss politicians who misuse
power and refers to the factual evidence of the dismissal of ‘the Lang government in NSW and the
Whitlam government in Canberra’. The evidence is seen as objective and incontrovertible convincing the
audience to feel that the constitutional monarchy has helped the general public in getting rid of corrupt
governments in Australia’s past. This positions the audience to feel that they can trust the monarchy to
help the general public and agree with the writer’s point of view.

Using inclusive language throughout the article, Johnston appeals to his audience’s sense of loyalty and
responsibility for their country, ‘we, the people of Australia, chose our Crown by referendum’. He tries
to position his audience to do what is right for their nation and fight those who oppose it. Johnston
reinforces his argument by rationalizing that the ‘constitutions… deny rogue politicians power’ while the
‘Queen never has abused power’. He intends to persuade his audience to question the reliability of a
republic and try to enforce that the Crown is the most stable system for their nation.

Through the use of exaggeration, Johnston questions how a republican system can dismiss a prime
minister if Australia were to be a republic. He says ‘…republicans want us to throw out our constitution,
our crown and our flag’ to emphasize that the republicans has a small appreciation towards its
monarchy and cares nothing for it. He intends to evoke anger in the audience and belittle the
republicans to greedy politicians, positioning the audience to agree with Jonhston’s contention.
Johnston adds weight to his argument by stating ‘The republicans must show how they will appoint and
dismiss an apolitical Head of State… without causing a revolution, civil war or festering hatreds’
highlighting the consequences if the republican system fails which may lead to a ‘civil war’ or a
‘revolution’. His exaggeration accumulates to a climax of chaos and destruction in the audiences’ minds,
arousing fear and anxiety in the audience to persuade the audience to doubt a republic and believes
that the monarch will protect them from this chaos.

Johnston then praises Australia’s constitution, ‘… complicated, costly, unsatisfactory, unbalanced

systems, like one of the existing republican countries in the world- none of which can hold a candle to
Australia’. He again appeals to the audience’s patriotism and loyalty, positioning the audience to feel
pride and warmth towards Australia’s constitution, agreeing with Johnston’s point of view. He then
changes his voice to a preaching and elated tone, again praising ‘our constitution has given us the most
free and democratic country in the world’, persuading the audience that the constitutional monarch is
the best political system Australia has and should not be changed to another ‘existing republican
country’.
In a passionate voice, Johnston contends that Australia should not change its constitution for a republic.
He uses various techniques to convince his audience and concludes that ‘we must keep it safe and
develop it for our children and ourselves, or we can let it fall forever to a republican power grab’. This is
a final attempt to place the audience on his side and imprints his message on the audiences’ minds.