It may take some of the shine off the Markle sparkle, but the majority of Australians luxuriating under the warm doona of the royal nuptials were blissfully unaware they were celebrating the family that legally reigns over them.

This wedding was more than a cross-Atlantic celebrity romance, it was the union of an American TV star with the man who is sixth in line to be Australia’s head of state. Among the little darlings running down the aisle were those who are third and fourth in line to rule over Australia; the best man is second in line, while the fella who stepped in to give the bride away is next cab off the rank (number five is currently too young to reign over anyone and was off to the side in the arms of his mother).

But despite being treated to gushing wall to wall media coverage from specially flown in news crews fixated on dresses and guests and family feuds, absent in the coverage was much recognition about how this was also a celebration of Australia’s power elite.

Sign up to receive the latest Australian opinion pieces every weekday

Maybe they thought it was assumed knowledge, maybe they thought that stating the power may have been taken as a bit of a downer; whatever the reason, it reinforced a growing ignorance about the Australian political system.

As this week’s Essential Report shows, just one third of Australians can currently identify the Queen of Great Britain as the Australian head of state. Another 30% get close by nominating the Queen’s representative in Australia, while a quarter think the elected prime minister holds ultimate power.

This is heavily skewed by age. People born after Gough Whitlam was dismissed are much more likely to see the PM holding the power and less likely to correctly nominate the Queen. Conversely, older Australians are more likely to get this basic element of civics right, yet even here it is less than a majority.

This represents one of a series of challenges facing a resurgent republican movement preparing a fresh post-election putsch, should Labor convince the Queen’s representative it can form the next government.

While the numerical support for the republican cause is incrementally up on recent polls, it still lags below the majority (required in a majority of states) needed to change the constitution.

Cross-tabulation analysis indicates that those who do not know who the head of state is are much less likely to support the cause. Ignorance has always been an enemy of progress, and wilful civic ignorance could emerge as a deal-breaker.

This suggests that the fundamental barrier to building a mood for change may be to actually educate the public about the way their political system works. Given civics classes seem to have failed, maybe we need to sponsor a new round of royal tours to make it explicit that they still run the show or revert the national anthem to “God Save the Queen” to break the facade that we are independent.

Uluru, reconciliation and republic: a chance to reimagine Australia? | Paul Daley Read more

But this is only the first step in winning the argument. Should broad acceptance on the principle be reached, there is still the matter of how a head of state should be selected.

This was the challenge that derailed the republican cause two decades ago, when what seemed an inevitable change was skilfully thwarted by a masterful negative campaigner named Tony Abbott, who shifted the debate from substance to form.

Labor’s plan is to avoid that pitfall by initially running a vote with a simple question: do you support an Australian head of state? It would then consult on the way the head of state would be elected.

Should it get that far, a clear preference is for direct election, a proposition that opens up its own can of worms.

The findings reinforce previous polls that show that people’s distrust of politicians is so strong that they would not support them choosing their head of state.



This presents republicans with the challenge of clearly defining powers to make sure that the change of head of state would not create a new centre of power with its own legitimacy. One only has to look at the head of state of our new royal bride (a Republican, no less), to ponder whether vesting ultimate power in a popularly elected individual is a fool-proof constitutional fix.

And it still leaves the more fundamental question of “why?” unanswered.

Malcolm Turnbull says postal survey could decide future of Australian republic Read more

In an era where corporations, culture and commerce increasingly operate across borders, what is the problem a republic will fix? Is the Keating formulation of confident and independent in our place in the world still compelling? Is a proposition based on a removing of a negative (non-Australian head of state) sufficiently compelling – especially when they can put on such a good show?

Or if there is to be a republican debate, does it need to confront more fundamental challenges for democracy, the lack of separation between executive and legislature, the overlap in tiers of government, the increasing body of evidence that our democratic processes lack the tools to deal with an integrated world?

One of the clichés floating around over the weekend was the ability of our royal family to reinvent itself. After all, who would have predicted the loyalists cheering a mixed-race bride just a few decades ago? Republicans need to show a similar capacity for reinvention to deliver on their historical mission.

• Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential and a Guardian Australia columnist