I pointed out recently that once again it had been shown that the best countries in the world to live in were constitutional monarchies (or to use the synonym, crowned republics). A reader who thinks Australia becoming a politicians‘republic would be a good thing said this was a mere correlation. In other words there is absolutely no connection between the fact that a country is governed in a certain way and the result.
He would say that wouldn’t he? So the way, say, Zimbabwe is governed has nothing to do with the quality of life there. In any event the evidence keeps flowing in.
Now we find that constitutional monarchies are fairer for women.
This comes from the World Economic Forum 2009 Annual Global Gender Gap Report. This is based on an index which assesses countries on how well they divide their resources and opportunities among their male and female populations. This is regardless of how wealthy they are. So a different result from the Human Development Index could be expected.
Constitutional monarchies make up less than 15% of countries on the index. But they make up 60% of the top ten and 50% of the top 20 countries. Doesn't that corroborate years of evidence presented here that they offer the best system of governance the world has ever seen?
And to borrow the style of the Australian Prime Minister Mr. Rudd, “I make no apology” for using the term “crowned republic”. It is sanctioned in our founding Charter. It is justified by the dictionary, philosophy, and usage. It is directed to the undecided the young those new to the country. It forces out those who hide their true preferences and their fundamental divisions behind the word “republic”.
Finally it annoys and is already seriously worrying those who want to make this country and New Zealand a politicians’ republic.