Romanian president finally impeached

Romanians have difficulties to decide whom they most detest – their president, their prime minister, or simply the entire political caste (they are not alone in that!). Hundreds of demonstrators have been gathering in cities across the country.

Some of them carry placards condemning Prime Minister Victor Ponta, while others slam his arch-rival, president Traian Basescu, who faces impeachment proceedings in the national parliament.

A third group would simply like to be rid of both.

On 6th July the country’s parliament voted to impeach president Traian Basecu. In a joint sitting of both houses of parliament 256 out of 432 MPs and senators voted in favour of removing Basescu from office 217 would have been sufficient to tell him to leave. For the vote to take effect the Romanian people have a final say. Within 30 days a referendum must be held. The most likely date for the referendum is 29th July.

Prime Minister Ponta’s coalition government took office only in May, fired the speakers of both houses of parliament and the ombudsman this week and threatened to sack judges of the Constitutional Court as well.

The German press agency DPA reported from Bucharest:

"During Basuscu’s eight years in office, he has repeatedly imposed his will on the formation of governments, paying little heed to the balance of political forces in parliament.

"He has made full use of his constitutional power to propose a candidate for prime minister, forcing through coalitions between the PDL and smaller parties to head off the PSD and PNL, which enjoyed a small relative majority.

"Ponta came to power at the end of April, after PDL members deserted their party in droves to join the opposition, bringing down the government through a vote of no confidence.

"The “deserters” were seen to have abandoned their party due to a loss of popularity. The PDL had pushed through austerity measures imposed by the IMF and European Union, cutting civil service salaries by 25%, freezing pensions and increasing value-added tax by five points to 24%.

"As a result, the PDL saw its share of the vote sink to a low of 15% in local elections at the beginning of June, while the PSD and PNL took almost 50%.

"Ponta could have waited for parliamentary elections scheduled for the autumn, confident that this trend would hold and that his alliance would secure victory, observers have mused.

"His decision, instead, to attempt to topple Basescu by democratically dubious means is thought to have two reasons.

"Firstly, he may be fearful of the judiciary, which he considers to be controlled by Basescu. Ponta’s political mentor, Adrian Nastase, prime minister in 2000-2004, is in jail for his role in a political funding scandal.

"And secondly, Ponta could be out for vengeance, as he believes Basescu to be behind the plagiarism allegations that have tarnished him. Ponta is said to have copied 85 pages of his 400-page dissertation without having cited the sources as required."

No referendum on the form of state
Unfortunately the proposed referendum will not be on the form of state, but only of the office holder. Basescu is certainly one of the worst presidents in Europe, but Romania’s problems lie deeper. Only in January 2012 the Romanian media reported: Wave of sympathy for King Mihai.

“According to an IMAS poll published last week by ‘Adevarul’ daily, the level of confidence in King Mihai stood at 25.7 per cent in December, being higher than that of president Traian Basescu (12.9 per cent) and in Premier Emil Boc (9.7 per cent) taken together.”

Traian Basescu is an old adversary of King Michael and certainly dislikes the King’s popularity. In October 2011, when the Romanian parliament celebrated the 90th birthday of King Michael, Traian Basescu boycotted the event, while most MPs cheered the monarch’s speech (according to International Business Times.)

The king addressed parliament in Bucharest for the first time in more than 60 years and he asked parliamentarians to upgrade democracy in the country and restore the dignity of the people.

Referring to the fall in 1989 of the Communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu, the king said: "The last 20 years have brought democracy, freedom and a beginning of prosperity. The time has come after 20 years to... break for good with the bad habits of the past" [such as] "demagogy, selfishness and attempts to cling to power. It is within our power to make this country prosperous and worthy of admiration".”

He added: "We cannot have a future without respecting the past. The royal crown is not a symbol of the past but a unique representation of our independence, sovereignty and unity.”

Before the festive event Basescu had launched a stinging attack on King Michael, accusing him of being responsible for the Holocaust in Romania, and calling him "a Russian lackey."

In an interview Basescu said as Michael was head of state during the pro-fascist regime of dictator Marshal Ion Antonescu — prime minister from 1940 to 1944, during World War II — he should also be considered responsible for the death of some 280,000 Jews and 11,000 Gypsies.

In 1944, when Romania was allied with Germany, Michael staged a coup against Antonescu, and Romania switched sides to the Allies.

Basescu called Michael "a Russian lackey" in the interview, adding that his abdication — forced by Soviet-backed Communists on 30th December 1947 — was "an act of treason."

In November 1947, with the communists gaining a hold over Romania and the region King Michael surprised the government by returning to Bucharest after attending the royal wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip in London. A month later the Soviet-backed communist government told him if he did not sign his abdication, 1,000 Romanians would be executed. He abdicated on 30th December 1947 and began a life of exile in Britain and Switzerland. His Romanian citizenship was restored in 1997.

Basescu, who insulted King Michael, was himself a member of the notorious secret agency Securitate, but claimed “his links with the former Securitate were minimal”
And Queen Helena, The Queen Mother, was subsequently honored by the Yad Vashem Museum in Israel for rescuing Romanian Jews.

The crisis in Romania could signify the need for an overall change of the political structure in Romania. Famous actor Ion Caramitru believes that King Michael of Romania was the only personality capable of restoring morality in the country and speaks about the toxicity of “turncoat communists” and of the former secret police officers who got into business. In an interview with ‘Adevarul,’ published in a translation of in the Bucharest Herald) the manager of the Bucharest National Theatre says he did not abandon his attitude of social militant, though he stays away from politics today. Caramitru still believes in the political principles of Christian Democracy to restore the monarchy and increase the respect for religion.

“I am sad! For the last 20 years, King Michael I has been in the country… The monarchy could have become perfectly stable during all these years and we could have banished communism forever, by annulling the abdication of 1947, when the King was rudely forced to leave the country. The return to monarchy would have put an end to this fight over the first position in the state, for a president who has discretionary powers. This semi-absolute power could divert the state to other ends, while monarchy secures the first position in the states only in a symbolic manner… Monarchy was the only principle capable of restoring morality in the country. Without it, what did we do? We have the same communists, now turncoats, and the former secret police officers who got into business and obtained revolutionist’s certificates. The infamous people controlling us in the past are doing the same today. The country is dying and everything was stolen,” Ion Caramitru said.

Ion Caramitru: Ce-am facut fara monarhie? Tara e pe dric si e furata pana la Dumnezeu!

Costly presidential retirees

Yesterday police searched the home of Germany's former president Christian Wulff and seized computers as part of an investigation into his dealings with wealthy business friends . Several officers from the Lower Saxony criminal police searched the premises with the consent of the former president, meaning they did not have to obtain a warrant.


Christian Wulff stepped down as president on 17th February just hours after prosecutors said that they would seek to lift his immunity from prosecution. Despite the dishonourable "retirement" the 52-year-old will receive an annual stipend of 199,000 € annually for the rest of his life, despite the fact that he had stepped down after less than two years in office, 598 days, to be precise. Should he die before his wife, his widow, who is only 38 years old, will step in and receive the full pension for life.


But it is not only this generous pension that infuriates the German public, it is the fact that all formers presidents plus one widow – six all in all – are entitled to an office, staff and a chauffeur driven limousine. Per ex-president this adds up to one million €, or six million € in total for the state pensioners.

Graphic: What Wulff shall receive.

Portuguese President demands more money despite cuts for everybody else

Ignored by the international media, a scandal has erupted in Portugal caused by the stubborn greed of Anibal Cavaco Silva, the Portuguese republic’s president. He had chosen the first anniversary of his re-election to complain about his impoverished living conditions.

While the debt crisis hit Portugal hard, the country’s governments (a Socialist one until 5th June 2011, after the its election defeat a coalition of Social Democrats [PDS] and Christian Democrats [CDS-PP]) are taking tough austerity measures to minimize the budget deficit. Amongst other measures the Socialist government decided that public servants cannot receive a salary and a pension at the same time. Under the new law Mr. Cavaco Silva renounced his presidential salary of €6523.93. As a former bank manager and university professor he is already entitled to a pension of €10,042.00 a month. On the anniversary of his election he complained that he cannot have a decent life with just €141,000 a year, in his case there is no scrapping of the 13th and 14th monthly holiday and Christmas payments.

A new member of the Occupy Movement: Anibal Cavaco Silva can't live on €10,042 a month.

His public outburst into a TV camera was not well received since the average Portuguese pensioner who lives on €600 a month and does no longer benefit from the once usual 13th and 14th payment. Price hikes on public transport, salary cuts for public servants and other austerity measures do not bother Mr. Cavaco Silva: He insists on a proper pension for himself and his wife, otherwise he would not be able to keep his standard of living.

The outrage is widespread and internet activists not only call for his resignation (Sr. Professor Cavaco, demita-se), but petitions can be signed to force Mr. Cavaco Silva out of office. Petição Pedido de Demissão do Presidente da República . Protesters gathered outside Portugal’s presidential palace to donate money and food to the head of state.

The best comment was already made last year. On 2nd March 2011 Dom Duarte Pio, heir to the Portuguese Crown, commented on the high abstention rate at the presidential elections: 60 percent of the Portuguese no longer care about the presidency. (Jornal de Notícias: O chefe da Casa Real Portuguesa, Duarte Pio de Bragança, defende que a elevada abstenção nas últimas eleições presidenciais significa que a Presidência da República, 'aparentemente, já não merece consideração da parte da maioria dos portugueses'.") But perhaps they do care about how much he is paid.

German Protesters shout 'Wulff must go!'

Protesters waved shoes in front of the German president's palace Saturday as the opposition issued fresh attacks against him. President Wulff remains under serious pressure over a private loan scandal.


Deutsche Welle published a report on the scandal in the German republic in English.

It took them a while, but finally German Monarchists published a statement on the president's affair here.

Nobody is interested in a president

Switzerland voted for a new president. Well, not exactly Switzerland or the 7.78 million Swiss, but a combined session of both houses of parliament, called Vereinigte Bundesversammlung.

246 members had the right to cast a vote. Only 223 ballot papers were handed out, indicating that 23 parliamentarians did not bother to show up. From the 222 ballot papers cast 106 bore the name of the Socialist candidate Micheline Calmy-Rey (65). She will be the Swiss president for one year, starting on 1st January 2011.

27 ballot papers were blank, 6 void. The rest carried names of other candidates.

Anybody interested to adopt the Swiss republican model, where 106 votes from 246 electors are sufficient to make someone president?

Even the arch-conservative Neue Zürcher Zeitung was not happy with this presidential election: Calmy-Rey bricht den Negativrekord (Calmy-Rey breaks negative record).

Prince Charles to open the Commonwealth Games – not another politician

At the beginning of this week, Prince Charles’ office sought to play down the reported row over whether the heir to the throne or Indian president Pratibha Patil would open the Commonwealth Games saying at both would have “a prominent role” in the opening ceremonies.

“The Prince of Wales will read out the Queen’s baton message, ending by declaring the Games open," it said in a statement. The reference to “declaring the Games open” left it open to interpretation, according to observers.

“There is no row. Both the Prince of Wales and the president of India will have a prominent role in the opening ceremony in Delhi. The Queen has asked the Prince of Wales to represent Her at the opening of the Commonwealth Games.”

Earlier The Daily Mail quoted an anonymous Indian “official source” as saying: “Although there has not been an official announcement, we have decided the president will open the Games.”

Why is it that politicians always try to set themselves in the first fiddle, when they obviously have no right to do so? There is no doubt that The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth and therefore the one and only person to open the Commonwealth Games. Her heir and successor is Prince Charles – also as Head of the Commonwealth - and he will be sent to represent Her Majesty. She did not ask the Indian president or any other politician to be her representative. India may try to override the shortcomings in the preparations to this year’s Commonwealth Games by setting new rules. But being the second biggest nation on earth does not give India the right to embarrass the heir to the throne and all other Commonwealth nations who are loyal to the principle of this free association of nations.

The only acceptable compromise could be that His Royal Highness and Ms. Patel will both proclaim the Games open simultaneously.

A president nobody knows - and no one wants

It was hard labour, but in the end the Germans got a new president. It took three rounds of voting until the Federal Convention (Bundesversammlung consisting of all members of the Bundestag, and a corresponding number of representatives from the federal states), fulfilled Chancellor Angela Merkel’s wish and agreed on Christian Wulff as the republic’s new president.

Though Christian Democrats and Liberals, who have been in a coalition government since October 2009, had a solid 21-majority in the Federal Convention, in the first round only 600 of the government’s 644 electors chose to cast a vote in favour of Christian Wulff, when an overall majority of 623 was required. In the second round his share improved slightly to 615.

In the third round, when the absolute majority was no longer required, Wulff got his ticket to the Bellevue Palace by managing 625 votes.

A disaster for the republican system corrupted by Angela Merkel, whose previous candidate Horst Köhler had just run out of office.

The new president has been so unknown to foreign correspondents, that the Spanish RTVE evening news reported on the selection’s result showing not the victorious Christian Wulff, but the oppositions candidate Joachim Gauck, obviously in the belief that he was the one who won the ballot. Such an embarrassing glitch could never happen with a new Monarch. The heir(s) to the throne are well known.

Costs of a presidency

We can be assured that before long will we get the bill for Prince William's unofficial visit in Australia. Republicans will triumphantly present the figures and claim that these costs would never have occurred under a republican regime, no matter how minimal they are.

Well, friends, don't be sure, because unless Australia closes its borders for visitors, there will always be costs which a host has to cover, not matter if the visitor fit to one's own ideology or not. A Chinese president does not come cheap, nor will an Irish president expect to pay her all her own expenses. It is rather impolite if a guest is presented the bill after he or she left the country.

But that is just what republicans do with royal guests in Australia.

Nothing new. So, let's look what expenses a president can cause in his own country. The figures come from the French website Observatoire des subventions.

Last week French president Nicolas Sarkozy paid a visit to the overseas departement of La Réunion to wish his subjects a Happy New Year. His 24-hour stay in the island east of Madagascar cost the French taxpayer 1.6 million Euros (=2.511 AUS $).

The president spent this sum for:

815 000 Euros on transport
Not less than four aeroplanes were used for this trip: one A319 for the president himself, another A319 for journalists and his delegation, a Falcon 50 flew empty to La Réunion, just in case, and an A310 also brought journalists and another part of the delegation to the island.

To these 815 000 Euros more costs have to be added, detailed figures are unknown, for fours helicopters that transported the president and his entourage between Saint-Pierre and Saint-Denis, the capital.

50 000 Euros for airconditioning
The Élysée Palace insisted on the installation of a new airconditioning system under the podium. It was out of the question that the president would appear with sweat marks under his arms when being seen by the public. On the other hand, the public had nothing other than the invitation card to fan fresh air into their faces.

23 000 Euros for meals
This sum does not include drinks.

17 000 Euros for the invitations
10 000 personal invitations on cardboard were sent to functionaries, party members, CEOs and other business men of La Réunion.

17 000 Euros rent for the hall
The rent for the “salle des expositions”, where Sarkozy expressed his New Year's wishes did not include lights, sound, staff costs and cleaning.

13 000 Euros for accomodation
An abnormally high price. The président de la république had chosen “l’un des plus luxueux mais aussi plus onéreux hôtel de la Réunion” (one of the most luxurious, but also most expensive hotels of La Réunion): Le Palm hôtel & Spa de Petite-Île. 55 rooms for 55 people (ministers, councillors, security staff, CEOs …).

Just as a footnote: In 2009 Nicolas Sarkozy's spent more money on garden parties than the Queen of the United Kingdom - but entertained less guests.

Presidents come with high costs

Remember the popular republican complaint, a Monarchy would cost the taxpayer tooooooo much money? Republicans give the impression, a president would be cheaper, certainly "more cost efficient".

Wait a minute, why not make a reality check?

The newly installed EU president, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, will start his new office on 1st January 2010. And he starts the job with a healthy budget. The Daily Telegraph has this to say about what the EU taxpayers have to shoulder:

"Herman Van Rompuy, the EU's new President, will be paid over £320,000 [$580,000] a year. The EU president will only pay a 24 per cent rate of tax and his personal annual travel budget will be £4 million [$7.22 million].

"He will have a staff of 60 people - a cabinet of 22, ten body guards and 28 support staff. His total office budget will be £22.3 million [$40.27 million]."

Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton

A new palace for the president
"A state of the art building is already under construction, at a cost to the taxpayer of £280 million [$505,6 million], to house the new president of Council.

"Named the Résidence Palace, after an existing Art Deco building, the new edifice has been designed to be the most impressive in Brussels and will be the venue for European Union summits after 2013. It has a floor space of 29,000 sq metres.

"The new figure is president of the European Council, the quarterly summits of heads of state and government that are the EU's highest political body.

"Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council becomes a fully fledged European institution rather than a political meeting, with origins in informal fireside chats between EU's founding six countries.

"The new President is charged with "driving forward" European Council decisions, which will in future be both politically and legally binding on all EU member states."

The EU shows how to appoint a mate as president
Republicans must love the way the EU got its first president. 27 politicians sat together and agreed to appoint one man out of their midst to be the head boy. No parliament involved, no election, not even any kind of consultation with the peoples he is supposed to represent.

And to make things worse, the population of all but one of the 27 member states were not even asked if they wanted a president. Gosh, aren't republics so democratic?

Germany’s president gets elected - and nobody took notice

Germany held presidential elections. Did anybody take any notice? Well, I cannot find a single hint in any Australian media. The ceremony was not exactly behind close doors – at least not the official act, however, when it comes to the selection of the candidates that is a different matter. Members of Germany's electoral college elected incumbent Horst Köhler as president with 613 votes out of 1,224, one vote above the required overall majority. He was backed by the conservative Christian Democrats, the free-market oriented Liberals, some independents and one Green. Silke Stokar of Hanover cast the decisive vote - and proudly made her decision public.

The opposition's candidate, Gesine Schwan, was supported by the Social Democrats (SPD) and most other Greens and secured 503 votes in the secret ballot. The rest went to a candidate supported by the former Communist “Die Linke”, four votes were cast in favour of a Neo-Nazi supported singer.

The panel (Bundesversammlung) comprises all 612 members of the Bundestag (lower house) and 612 public figures, a few of them sports "heroes" and television actors, nominated by Germany's 16 federal states. The German population had no say in the composition of the Bundesversammlung. They were never asked whom they wanted as their president.

When Horst Köhler was first elected in 2004, he was not even living in Germany. At that time he headed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and had to be called back from Washington. The conservative party leaders had been unable to agree on a candidate of their liking. It is a well established fact that three party leaders had gathered in a penthouse flat of one of them and agreed at one o’clock in the morning: Habemus Köhler. Since it was not necessary to send him into an electoral campaign to get a popular vote, the practically unknown Horst Köhler slipped into the presidential Palace, Schloß Bellevue in Berlin, with a one vote majority.

The victory for the 66-year-old Köhler in the first round is expected to give Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives an important boost ahead of the September parliamentary election, where she is seeking a second four-year term.

The politicians’ republic, which was rejected by the Australian people in a referendum in 1999 is well in place in Germany. The German people get, what the politicians select for them. Does anybody - outside Germany - care? Compare just two events. Last year, the tiny Kingdom of Tonga with 120,000 inhabitants was the talk of the world, when the new King was crowned. The 80 million Germans get a new president – and the world is bored and ignores the event.

The world media were attracted to the minuscule Principality of Monaco, when Prince Rainier III died in 2005 and his heir, Prince Albert II, ascended to the throne. Horst Köhler taking up residence in Berlin’s Schloß Bellevue did not even get a snippet in The Age.

How German Monarchists commented the “presidential election” can be read in one of their publications. Ask for a copy of the German language Corona newsletter: corona_redaktion@yahoo.com.

And he is the one, German Monarchists want to see as Kaiser:
Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia (*1976), Head of the House of Hohenzollern, a great-great-grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II and a great-great-great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria.

The Joys and Scares of Republicanism

Contrary to the bright future in flourishing democracy and in prosperity that republicans claim "an" Australian republic would be, this is what a direct elected presidential system could hold in store. In a letter to The Age of 1st September 2008 a reader expressed these fears:

I am perturbed, no, I am absolutely terrified when I think of the ramifications of McCain’s selection of a running mate. If anything should happen to John McCain, and let’s face it, he is 72, we would then have an untravelled, inexperienced, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty (these on their own seem to be a contradiction) pro-creationist, pro-drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness, woman with an accent that could cut glass as president of the most powerful country in the world. Does the world really want or need this? I certainly hope not!
R. H., Beaumaris, Victoria

A rather scary portrait of a possible US vice president or even US president. An elected monarch for four years with men and women nobody knows waiting in the shadow to take over the administration not only of the 300 million US cititens, but to a large extent, of us all. Instead of a cabinet or a party leadership with lots of names the US voters vest all their hopes – or fears – on four people. Who will form the next US administration? Nobody knows. That’s an even scarier thought than the potential vice president Sarah Palin becoming president.

Although our Monarch exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, and other institutions. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. The Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land - its authority is not absolute).

The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, (s)he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour.

Royal Grace - Republican Disgrace
“Sometimes all it takes is a little Grace” is a key sentence in the British black comedy “Keeping Mum”. Usually grace is connected with Royalty, republics are disgraceful. Do you want proof? Then notice the difference between Nepal and Zimbabwe.

Nepal’s King Gyanendra left the Royal Palace after the Constitutional Assembly had declared the Monarchy abolished. Media for Freedom called it a “graceful exit" and documented the King’s speech on a press conference on 11th June 2008. The Monarch said:

"I would like to inform everybody concerned that when seven years back because of an unnatural, unexpected and tragic incident while shouldering the responsibility of the Head of the State according to the national heritage and ages of old monarchical traditions, I had no other interests except considerations for the sovereignty, independence, national pride, territorial integrity, peace and the institutional development of democracy, and overall progress of all the citizens. In the Hindu kingdom of Nepal, the birth place of Buddha the efforts started, with the best of intention trying to ensure the peace and prosperity in the country were not successful overtime, which I have already accepted earlier. The chain of events and ensuing results are obvious to everybody like an open book.

Respecting Constitutional Assembly elections and the decision taken by the constituent assembly meeting on Jestha 15th, I am cooperating in every way towards the successful implementation of that decision. I have also not thought of leaving the country. I would like to live in my own Motherland and contribute in whatever way possible to greater good of the country and peace in this land. I believe that there will be support for this from all sectors."

On the other hand Robert Mugabe who has been in power in Zimbabwe since 1980. He has refused to recognize the results of the 29th March elections.

Instead he was “re-elected” as the Brisbane Times reported:
"Robert Mugabe was sworn on 30th June to a new term as Zimbabwe's president and called for dialogue between the country's political parties after a one-man election widely denounced as illegitimate.

"After taking the oath of office from Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku at his State House residence, the 84-year-old leader issued an appeal for "unity".
Mugabe was assured of a landslide victory after Tsvangirai pulled out of Friday's presidential run-off, saying rising violence had left nearly 90 MDC supporters dead and thousands injured.

"Tsvangirai won the first round on March 29 with 47.9 per cent of the vote against 43.2 per cent for Mugabe, just short of an outright majority.
Defying international and regional calls for him to postpone the election, Mugabe pushed ahead with the vote anyway, warning against outside interference in his country's affairs and shrugging off Tsvangirai's claims of violence."

And why is Mugabe clinging to the presidential chair? “Only God can unseat me”. Obviously he is thinking he was put in power “by the grace of God”.
LiveNews said: “His mother told Robert Mugabe when he was a child that he had been chosen by God to be a great leader.

No wonder he thinks only divine power - not elections, not foreign critics, not a crumbling economy or a much younger opposition leader - can unseat him.

In the mind of Zimbabwe's leader of nearly three decades, reality is summed up by a massive banner hanging in the entrance to the presidential offices: Mugabe is Right.”

Republican presidents have neither style nor a conscience. They are simply graceless. Long live the King!

Can Australia afford an Emperor’s visit?
While visiting Japan Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his wife had an audience with the Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko on 11th June. According to a newspaper report "Rudd invited the Emperor and the Empress to visit Australia … and extended the invitation also to the Heir to the throne, Crown Prince Naruhito, and Crown Princess Masako.” Not a single journalist seems to have noticed that Prime Minister Rudd was not entitled to invite the Japanese Emperor. It is most likely that he handed over the invitation of the Queen of Australia's representative, the Governor-General, since a head of state can only be invited by another head of state, not by the head of government. Kevin Rudd seems to follow the bad example of his predecessor, John Howard, who continuously sidelined the Governor-General.

One can only hope that the Prime Minister had consulted his republican backbenchers before inviting the royal guests, since recent visits by members of Royal Families were not welcomed by Labor MPs. Take Labor MP Daryl Melham as an example: "I don't begrudge looking after people, but what the royals cost is a bit over the top," he said in September 2006, after a report had revealed that the Queen’s and the Duke of Edinburgh six day stay in Australia had cost “just under $1.5 million”. $662,678 was spent on travel expenses, $81,800 on accommodation, $61,460 on security and a whopping $644,300 for "other expenses'', including entertainment. The same report put George Bush’s brief stay in Sydney as a comparison at $186,000.

Of course the comparison was not done by giving the real figures. A 24 hour stay of George Bush and his entourage in Germany that same year had cost € 20 million or ($ 28 million) and Australia could host the US president at the cheap rate of $186,000? 12,000 policemen shielded him away from the German public. Were there none in Sydney? It seems, no security bill was put up, and certainly no compensation was paid to shop owners who had to close their business for security reasons. Sydney Airport must have forgotten to hand in the bill for the landing strip that was damaged by the president’s Air Force One plane.

The three day visit of the Swedish King and Queen cost double the one day trip of the Chinese dictator-president Hu Jintao to Australia. Not unreasonable, it seems. But republicans cried foul.

Who’s to blame? The Royals, of course, if you follow the critics. The anti-Monarchy reflex makes you wonder if Australian republicans want to avoid any visit of Monarchs and heirs to the throne at all because they fear this might encourage the monarchist sentiment in Australia. “Only a republican visitor is a welcome visitor”, could be the motto.

However, Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko, Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako will be most welcome in Australia and for once the thrifty republicans should forget their ideological blindness and give the Imperial guests a hearty welcome, if only as a symbol of the long term reconciliation between Austalia and Japan.

Republicans should spare their angry red faces for the time when the Queen of Australia or another member of the Australian Royal Family will be on our soil.

A photo says more than a thousand words
Every republic has the president it deserves. Sarkozy may grow with time.