blogging it real

First things first, my tips for the weekend's all-important NRL matchups:

Warriors vs Eels - hell, I'll be there cheering the Warriors to victory myself. Warriors.

Cowboys vs Dogs - I'll go with my usual approach of always picking the Cowboys to win at home. It has served me well in the past. Cowboys.

Eagles vs Rabbitohs - Hard to go past the home team in this one too. Eagles.

Storm vs Broncos - Amazing the Broncos even made it to the final 8. I fear their unfortunate season will end in Melbourne, but if they want to prove me wrong, please go ahead. I can afford to miss one pick, and this might as well be it. Storm.

I need to get at least 3/4 picks to keep my average up above 60%.

Now on to politics, or matters constitutional really.

WHO IS NEW ZEALAND'S REAL HEAD OF STATE?

The formal answer is, of course, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand. Or something along those lines.

The "the Second" part is informative, as there has be no Queen Elizabeth "the first" of New Zealand. Literally, Betty Windsor is the first Queen of New Zealand with the name "Elizabeth".

This serves as an interesting clue as to the real identity of the Queen: she "the Second" Elizabeth only in the UK, "the First" in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and so on. This leads me to suggest that calling her "Queen of New Zealand" is something of a fiction. She is really the Queen of the UK ... and only Queen of New Zealand et al. by virtue of that fact. If the Brits abolished the monarchy tomorrow, and became a Protectorate or Republic, would New Zealand really cling to the monarch, or look to elect a President quick smart? An interesting question, but rather by-the-by for my purposes.

Queen Elizabeth the Second (sic) of New Zealand, like Queen Elizabeth the Second (sic) of Canada, is a Head of State who does nothing of any political consequence. She possesses no practical power, and exercises no practical power. A figurehead, as is well known. A de jure Head of State whose role is ceremonial/symbolic, not practical/political.

For real intents and purposes, most of the powers one associates with the Head of State (leader of the Executive Branch of government and all that) is the Prime Minister. This is particularly obvious in unitary states like New Zealand, but is also true in federal states like Australia and Canada. The Prime Minister does the real business of leading the country, for better or worse, albeit theoretically dependent upon the consent of the de jure Head of State.

But the de facto Head of State (the Prime Minister) seldom interacts with the de jure Head of State (the Queen) directly. Rather, he or she goes through the de jure Head of State's local proxy, the Governor General. And who appoints this person to the job? Not "we, the people" but ... the Prime Minister.

How fucked up is all this? We have a de jure Head of State, who is only in the position by virtue of being the de jure Head of State of another State (the UK), and fills a purely symbolic role. But she's not even really our symbolic Head of State in any day-to-day sense, this role being filled instead by a local representative, who is also a figurehead. (In Canada and Australia, add Lieutenants-General to this mix and you begin to sense high farce coming on).

And just to hammer home the point about who is really in charge of the state, this symbolic representative of a symbolic foreign Head of State, is actually appointed by the Prime Minister.

Labels: politics, rugby league