Constitution

Constitution (pronounced kon-sti-too-shun)

(1) The formal or informal system of primary principles and rules regulating a government or other institution.

(2) In law, a legal document describing such a formal system.

(3) In Roman Catholicism, a document issued by a religious authority serving to promulgate some particular church laws or doctrines.

(4) A person's physical makeup or temperament, especially in respect of robustness; the general health of a person (now less common except in technical use).

1350-1400: From the Middle English constitucioun & constitucion (edict, law, ordinance, regulation, rule, statute; body of laws or rules, or customs; body of fundamental principles; principle or rule (of science); creation), from the twelfth century Old French constitucion (constitution, establishment) (which persists the in modern French constitution), a learned borrowing from the Latin cōnstitūtiō & cōnstitūtiōnem (character, constitution, disposition, nature; definition; point in dispute; order, regulation; arrangement, system), from cōnstituō (to establish, set up; to confirm; to decide, resolve).  A common use of cōnstitūtiōnem was as a noun of state from past-participle stem of constituere (to cause to stand, set up, fix, place, establish, set in order; form something new; resolve),  The construct was constitute +‎ -ion.  Constitute was from the Middle English constituten, from the Latin cōnstitūtum (neuter of cōnstitūtus, past participle of cōnstituō (to put in place, set up, establish).  The –ion suffix was from the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  Constitution & constitutionality are nouns, constitutionally is an adverb, constitutional is an adjective; the noun plural is constitutions.

The meaning “action of establishing; creating" dates from circa 1400 while that of "way in which a thing is constituted" was from circa 1600.  The once common sense of "physical health, strength and vigor of the body" was from the 1550s, extended some thirty year later to "temperament & character", both now rare though not yet archaic.  The sense of "mode of organization of a state" emerged around the turn of the seventeenth century, evolving gradually to by the 1730s conveying the idea of a "system of principles by which a community is governed", finally by the late eighteenth century being understood as “document of basic or foundational laws”, something which reflected the influence of the US and French constitutions.  Although rare, constitutions of nations can be described as “unwritten” which is a little misleading because probably every aspect of an “unwritten” constitution in a modern state does exist somewhere in writing (statute, legal judgments etc) so a better expression is probably “un-codified”.  The best known example of the “unwritten constitution” is that of England where it’s understood as the collective name for the fundamental principles established by the political development of the English people embodied variously in common law, statute and in long-accepted precedents.  Liking the flexibility afforded, no British government has ever seriously contemplated a written constitution.

The adjective constitutional dates from the 1680s in the sense of "pertaining to a person's (physical or mental) constitution" and came to be used to mean "beneficial to bodily constitution" in the mid-eighteenth century and came later to be applied adjectivally to heath remedies as varied as morning walks and the odd medicinal brandy.  The meaning in legal judgements "authorized or allowed by the political constitution" was first used in 1765 while the “constitutional monarchy” (a monarchy constrained by law and democratic institutions) was first described (in France and apparently without irony) in 1801.  From constitutional as a legal concept came the inevitable adverb constitutionally, recorded first in 1767 although the noun constitutionality (quality of being in accord with a constitution) seems not to have left the judicial pen until 1787.

The substantive moments in Australian constitutional development

1770: Captain James Cook, on a voyage under the auspices of the Admiralty, claims eastern coastline of Australian continent for the British Crown.

1788: Government of the UK conducts successful invasion on 26 February.  Colony of NSW established and occupation of the continent begins as a colonial project, initial as a penal settlement.

1825: Limited self-government granted by the Colonial Office which (with variations in detail) is between 1825-1890 introduced for the colonies of NSW, Tasmania, New Zealand, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.

1901: The six Australian colonies federate as the Commonwealth of Australia.  The Australian Constitution, an act of the Imperial Parliament, becomes basic law on 1 January 1901 creating the Parliament of Australia which subsequently also passes the act of constitution, thus creating the nation state in its original form.

1903: High Court of Australia constituted.

1927: Division of the Imperial Crown which, in effect, creates the Kingdom of Australia although this will not be formalised until 1973.  This was the mechanism which began the process of the relationship with the monarch being one increasingly disconnected from the UK government.

1931: Statute of Westminster granted (almost complete) legislative independence to the Dominions (including Australia) although it would be some time before the Australian government sought to formalize the implications of this.

1949: Australian citizenship created.

1969: The removal of rights of appeal from federal courts to the Judicial Appeal Committee (the board) of the Privy Council.  This had the effect of making rulings of the High Court final in all matters of Commonwealth law while appeals to London from state and territory courts remained possible.

1986: The Australia Acts (simultaneous acts of the UK and Australian parliaments) sunder last remaining legal connections between the two parliaments and legal systems (section 74 of the constitution notwithstanding).

The passage of the Australia Acts meant Australia retained two remote constitutional connections of which, strictly speaking, only one was with the United Kingdom.  The first is through the monarch, not as the King of England but of Australia and of each of the states and the relationship between the monarch (as head of state) and the Commonwealth is purely personal and wholly unconnected with the UK.  Were the UK to become a republic this would have no constitutional effect in Australia and the head of state would remain whomever is the relevant living successor in the line of succession from Queen Victoria (1819-1901; Queen 1837-1901).  The argument that more correctly the line of succession should begin from a later monarch because of the change in constitutional relationship is an interesting one for legal theorists but because of the biological continuity, there’s no difference in consequence.

King William IV sits before a pie containing two dozen blackbirds, served to him by Lord Melbourne (1836), colored lithograph by HB (John Doyle (1797-1836).  Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; UK prime-minister 1834 & 1835–1841) was the last prime minister dismissed by the monarch, William IV (1765–1837; King of the United Kingdom & King of Hanover 1830-1837) determining his commission in 1834.

The relationship is of interest because in legal theory, everything done by the governments (state and federal) is lawful because of powers which can be traced back to those of the monarch.  These powers are a construct of conventions, codified law, legal fictions and precedent and can be understood when deconstructed rather than observed in operation.  For example, the King, being the Lord Paramount in Australia technically owns all the land and other traditional forms of ownership (leasehold & freehold) are actually grants from the crown which may be revoked.  This is of course best thought of as a legal fiction and more of a trustee relationship but does illustrate the way that all power exercised by governments is ultimately derived from those held by the monarch.

A saltwater crocodile.

The powers of the monarch of course exist but can’t in most cases be exercised by the monarch.  Of great interest to Australians is the right of the monarch to dismiss a prime-minister and this power still exists in the UK (those who suggest otherwise have no basis on which to base the assertion) but because the powers in Australia have been delegated to a governor-general, the monarch does not usually have this personal authority.  However, although it’s not certain, it’s probable that a monarch does re-assume the power if standing on Australian so, something no politically unthinkable so if the need arose to sack an Australian prime-minister when a Monarch was visiting, they would immediately be taken for a day’s deep-sea fishing, it being necessary only to be 12 miles (20 km) off the coast to be in international waters, thus allowing the Governor-General do their dirty work.  If the need was to dismiss a state premier or Territory chief minister, then the monarch would need only to go for a swim because once beyond the low-water line off the coast, they would be splashing around in commonwealth waters and the state governor would be free to swing the axe.  That sound tactic would be fine except in the Northern Territory because up there, anyone stepping foot in the ocean will probably be eaten by a crocodile so a wise monarch will make a sudden dash for the Queensland border.  Even though the Northern Territory government has (most unfortunately) done away with the de-restricted (ie no speed limits) roads in the outback, the monarch is exempt from such rules so it’d be a quick trip.

Taking a morning constitutional: Lindsay Lohan out walking, Los Angeles, 2010.

The other connection has long been thought a historic relic.  Section 74 of the constitution provides for an appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council if the court issues a certificate that it is appropriate for the Privy Council to determine an inter se (a case concerning constitutional relations between the Commonwealth and one or more states or between states) matter.  The only such certificate was issued in 1912 and in 1985, the High Court judges (unanimously) observed that the power to grant such a certificate “…has long since been spent… and is obsolete".  However, it’s there with full legal force so, in the strict constitutional sense, an appeal from the High Court, however unlikely, remains possible.

Enshrine

Enshrine (pronounced en-shrahyn)

(1) To enclose (a sacred relic etc) in a shrine or chest.

(2) To cherish as sacred or venerated, someone, an idea or an institution.

(3) In statute or constitutional law, to protect (a concept, ideal, or philosophy) within a law or treaty.

(4) Figuratively, to make permanent.

1575–1585: The construct was en- + shrine.  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- (en-, in-), from the Old French en- (also an-), from the Latin in- (in, into).  It was also an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin & Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- was due to confluence with Frankish intensive prefix an- which was related to the Old English intensive prefix -on.  It formed a transitive verb whose meaning is to make the attached adjective (1) in, into, (2) on, onto or (3) covered.  It was used also to denote “caused” or as an intensifier.  The prefix em- was (and still is) used before certain consonants, notably the labials b and p.  Shrine ((1) a holy or sacred place dedicated to a specific deity, ancestor, hero, martyr, saint, or similar figure of awe and respect, at which said figure is venerated or worshipped, (2) a case, box, or receptacle, especially one in which are deposited sacred relics, as the bones of a saint & (3) figuratively a place or object hallowed from its history or associations) was from the Middle English shryne, from the Old English scrīn (reliquary, ark of the covenant), from the Medieval Latin scrīnium (reliquary (“case or chest for books or papers” in Classical Latin)) and ultimately from the primitive Indo-European sker & ker- (to turn, bend).  It was linked with the Old Norse skrín and the Old High German skrīni (which survives in Modern German as Schrein).  In the sixteenth century enshrine & inshrine were used in parallel, both in the sense of “enclose in or as in a shrine; deposit for safe-keeping”.  The (rare) alternative form inshrine is listed (like the verb enshrineth as obsolete for all but the odd ceremonial use in religious rituals.  Enshrine & enshrined are verbs, enshriner, enshrinee & enshrinement are nouns, enshrined is verb & adjective and enshrining is a verb.

Implausibly, the White House tries to suggest Joe Biden is "cool".

October 3 has become enshrined as Mean Girls Day which is good but the White House for the last two years (2023 (left) & 2022 (right)) has tweeted memes on the theme, apparently in an attempt to make Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) seem somehow relevant (al last to the early twentieth century).  On both occasions, the reaction has been such that one might hope it stops but the next Mean Girls Day falls a few weeks before the 2024 presidential election and if Mr Biden doesn’t die (God forbid) and really does again run, the temptation may be too great.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (TheVoice)

In October 2014, the Australian government submitted to the voters by means of referendum (the only way to modify the nation’s constitution):

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?

The insertion of the following chapter:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The “No” case assembled a number of arguments in opposition but one, although it seemed of fundamental importance, seemed to attract little comment and the “Yes” proponents made little attempt to refute its implications.  What the “No” case alleged, inter alia, was:

Putting a Voice in the Constitution means it’s permanent.  Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians means… once it is in the Constitution it won’t be undone.

In a literal sense that was of course almost certainly true but given the vagueness of the wording and the latitude afforded to the parliament in framing the parameters of “The Voice”, there seems no reason why things shouldn’t have gone the way of the Interstate Commission, a creature of Section 101 of the Constitution of Australia (1901):

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

In terms of both legal theory and the usual constitutional practice the words “There shall be an Inter-State Commission” seem unambiguous but the Inter-State Commission wasn’t established until 1912 and became dormant after 1920 because the High Court of Australia (HCA) in 1915 has found the judicial powers granted to the commission by the parliament were invalid.  The bench held a “separation of powers” was implicit in the constitution which demanded judicial power be vested only in the judiciary and that on technical grounds the commission was not a judicial body.  Rendered therefore merely investigative and deliberative, the government allowed the commission to become defunct and it wasn’t revived until the 1980s and even then, after a brief existence as a stand-alone body, it was absorbed by what eventually became the Productivity Commission.

So, even had the words “There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice” had been enshrined in the Constitution, that alone would not seem to prevent a parliament at some point passing a law defining “The Voice” as one (suitably accommodative) indigenous person attached to the Department of Prime-Minister & Cabinet (PM&C) or just about any other model.  Because of the wording, it might be the High Court would have been generous in their view of who would have standing to challenge a model but the clause “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures” would seem to offer little scope.  Lord Denning (1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) himself would have struggled to find an “indigenous peoples’ equity” in all that.  Mere enshrinement of “The Voice” in the Constitution would not in itself have guaranteed any sort of legal or political dynamic because, as the tale of the Inter-State Commission demonstrated, words can be dead letters.

Coterminous

Coterminous (pronounced koh-tur-muh-nuhs)

(1) Having the same border or covering the same area; bordering; contiguous.

(2) Being the same in extent; coextensive in range, scope, time etc.

1790–1800: A re-formation of conterminous from the Latin conterminus, the construct being con- (with) + terminus (border, end).  The prefix con- is derived from the Latin preposition cum (with).  Terminus is from the primitive Indo-European térmn̥ (boundary) of uncertain origin but perhaps from terh- (pass through).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek τέρμα (térma) (a goal) and τέρμων (térmōn) (a border) and although contested, some etymologists suggest a relationship with the Sanskrit तरति (tar-) (to overcome), the Classical Latin trāns (through, across, over) and even possibly intrō (I enter, I go into).  Coterminal is the adjective, coterminously the adverb.

Most dictionaries insist that despite having been in use since the 1630s, the hyphenated co-terminous is a malformation but, coterminous being a rare word, it’s not often disputes arise.  Purists who prefer always to stick to the classics reject both as needless formations and prefer the original Latin: conterminous.

The advantage of being original

The constitutions of some nations were forged out of war, revolutions or long struggles between sovereign and subjects so their foundation documents, their basic law, often contain stirring words, preambles especially sometimes even with literary merit.  The Constitution of Australia is not one of those documents.  While there were arguments during the eight-odd years it took for the six self-governing British colonies to agree on a draft, the matters in dispute mostly were procedural and mercantile rather than the rights of man and the pursuit of happiness.  Things were hammered-out in committees and smoke-filled rooms, no mobs taking to the street or storming a parliament; apparently not even an effigy was burned.  The document which emerged has proved durable and adaptable but not a great read, befitting a nation which gained its independence (if originally incomplete until 1986) not through battle but bureaucracy.  The draft reached London in 1900 and was soon passed by the imperial parliament as the Constitution of Australia Act which effectively created the country, its executive, legislature and judiciary, empowering a parliament to meet.  Thus assembled, the Parliament of Australia passed the Constitution of Australia Act, becoming effective on 1 January 1901, the first day of the new century.

So Australia was born not out of struggle on streets running with blood but by a grant of freedom from a colonial oppressor which had learned the lessons of 1776.  The constitution passed has since been little modified but has accommodated some changes better to be the basic law of a place where things do change.  It tends to be forgotten that, even in 1901, anything like what’s now thought to be genuine democracy was rare anywhere and, where it existed to the extent it did, it was a recent and sometimes fragile thing.  The Australian constitution did however create a framework for one structural aspect of democracy now thought fundamental: the equality of the value of the individual citizen’s vote. 

While that didn’t apply to the upper house, that was one of the prices to pay for nationhood; the smaller states would never have agreed to federate had they not been afforded equality of representation in what they seemed genuinely to believe would be the place where their interests would be protected.  That illusion didn’t long last but the distortions, now actually worse, remain.  Regarding the lower house, Chapter I, Part III, Section 24 of the constitution provides (1) it shall have twice the number of members of the upper house and (2) the number of members in each of the six states shall be in proportion to the state’s population.  That, even today, is about as equitable as is possible but a further clause provided that (3) none of the original states can have fewer than five members, regardless of the math imposed by (1) & (2).

By the early twenty-first century, that meant in New South Wales, there was one senator for every 680,000-odd souls whereas one represented every 45,000 Tasmanians, a impressive imbalance around 85:15; in the lower house it was a much more democratic 62:38.  Better still, if ever Tasmanians feel somehow unrepresented, there’s also a state parliament with an upper and lower house and a layer of local government.  These distortions do happen in other countries (notably the United States Senate) but among those with some claim to free and fair electoral systems, the Tasmanian example is probably extreme.  In Australia, it pays to be an original state.

In that state parliament, a feature of Tasmania’s mysterious Hare-Clark electoral system for the House of Assembly (state lower house) is that its five electoral divisions are coterminous with the five House of Representatives (Commonwealth lower house) divisions (Bass, Braddon, Clark, Franklin and Lyons).  Although it may sound a rare example of bureaucratic efficiency, it’s dictated more by the practicalities of the multi-member Hare-Clark system.

Diet

Diet (pronounced dahy-it)

(1) Food and drink considered in terms of its qualities, composition, and its effects on health.

(2) A particular selection of food, especially as designed or prescribed to improve a person's physical condition or to prevent or treat a disease.

(3) Such a selection or a limitation on the amount a person eats for reducing weight.

(4) The foods eaten, as by a particular person or group.

(5) Food or feed habitually eaten or provided.

(6) Anything (food and otherwise) habitually provided or partaken of.

(7) To regulate the food of, especially in order to improve the physical condition.

(8) Legislative bodies of certain countries.

(9) The general assembly (Reichstag) of the estates of the Holy Roman Empire.

(10) In the law of Scotland, the date fixed by a court for hearing a case.

(11) In the law of Scotland, a single session of a court.

(12) In microbiology, the abbreviation of Direct Interspecies Electron Transfer.

1175-1225: From the Middle English diete or dieten (pittance, fare) and the Old French diete (diet, pittance, fare), from the Medieval Latin dieta (parliamentary assembly (also "a day's work”; daily food allowance, food) from diaeta (prescribed way of life) from the Ancient Greek díaita (way of life, regimen, dwelling), from diaitan & diaitasthai (separate, select (food and drink) which later had the sense “to direct or lead one's life”), frequentative of diainysthai (take apart), the construct being dia (apart) + aita (akin to aîsa share, lot) from ainysthai (take), from the primitive Indo-European root ai- (to give, to allocate).

As a verb, diet began its evolution to the current modern meaning from the late fourteenth century with a range of meanings such as “customary way of eating", "food considered in relation to its quantity and effects" & "a course of food regulated by a physician or by medical rules", the latter often a restriction of food or certain foods, hence the sense of “putting someone on a diet” which was attested by the 1650s in the sense of the specific meaning "to regulate oneself as to food" and applied especially against growing fat; from here came “dieted” & “dieting”.  A long obsolete word for this was banting (an early system for weight loss through diet control, named after its inventor, William Banting (1797-1878), the English undertaker(!) who self-tested the programme and advertised it in his 1863 pamphlet: Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public").  The undertaker lived a long life and was inspired to enter the embryonic field which would become such a huge industry because, in the course of his work, he noted, impressionistically, a striking correlation between obesity and those who died young.  Because of the linguistic coincidence, although the word is a surname, it was used as a verbal noun as in “she needs to start banting".  The system was similar to some modern diet advice in that it advocated eating lean meats and limiting the intake of fat, starch, and sugar.

As a noun applied to legislative bodies (assembly of delegates, etc., held from day to day for legislative, political, or other business), it came into use in the fifteenth century, the Medieval Latin diēta (public assembly) apparently the same word as Latin diaeta, from the Ancient Greek diaita (way of life, regimen, dwelling) but associated with Latin dies (day).  Technically, diēta was a variant of diaeta (daily office of the Church) most often translated as daily duty or an assembly or meeting of counsellors.  In Latin diēta meant also "a day's work, diet, daily food allowance", derived from diaeta (prescribed way of life), from the Greek diaita and the best-known early assemblies were the German and Austrian of the Holy Roman Empire, “diet” used as a descriptor by both French and English authors.  The (now rare) adjective dietal (pertaining to a diet in the “assembly” sense) entered the language in 1845.

Product placement: Diet Coke in Mean Girls (2004).

The verbal noun “dieting” from the verb diet was first noted circa 1400 and the first practicing (or at least one advertised as such) dietician (one who practices some theory of diet) dates from 1845, from the noun diet on the model of physician, replacing the older dietist from circa 1600 although it seems curious dietist hasn’t been picked up as an Instagram niche; one can hardly think of a better tag for many an influencer.  The adjective dietary (pertaining to diet) is from the 1610s, from the Medieval Latin dietarius, from the Classical Latin diaetarius.  The old adjectives are listed by dictionaries thus: diætetic (archaic), dietetical (dated) and dietetic (obsolete).  All meant “pertaining to the rules for regulating the kind and quantity of food taken” and again were from the diaeteticus, from the Ancient Greek διαιτητικός (diaitētikós).  The adjective “diet” as a trade-name meaning (or at least implying) “slimming, having reduced calories” was first used in the US in 1958 when the Diet Rite soft drink was released, its novelty being sugar-free and the Coca-Cola Company responded in 1963 with the similar Tab which remained available in a gradually dwindling number of markets until 2020.  Interestingly, the Coca-Cola Company which since 1983 had been selling Diet Coke, discovered from its extensive market research that “diet” was off-putting to male consumers and thus in 2005 released Coca-Cola Zero though they must have though consumers just didn’t get it because in 2017 it was re-named Coca-Cola Zero Sugar.

Japanese Diet: Upper (2013 & 2016) and Lower House (2017) Election Results

Elections for the lower house (House of Representatives) of the Japanese diet became rambunctious sometime in the 1950s but those for the upper house (House of Councillors) were usually rather sleepy affairs which seemed to matter little until, in retrospect, the polls of 2013 and 2016 seemed to assume an unexpected importance after the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) unexpectedly decisive victory in the 2017 (lower house) general election.  What the 2017 landslide meant was that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s (b 1954; Prime Minister of Japan 2006-2007 & 2012-2020) LDP suddenly enjoyed a two-thirds majority in both houses, a type of control of the legislature called a supermajority, giving Mr Abe the legal means, if perhaps not a mandate, to attempt to amend Japan’s pacifist constitution which had been a long-held ambition of members of certain LDP factions.

Adopted in 1947 when Japan was under US occupation, the constitution has ensured Japan’s so-called Self-Defense Forces have never been deployed in combat although successive LDP administrations have for decades stretched policy well-beyond what the constitution technically permits.  The critical matter is Article 9 of the constitution which prohibits war as a means to settle international disputes and its repeal would be controversial in the region where the conduct of Imperial Japan’s military remains in living memory.  Nor is it universally popular at home, some fearing a government might be tempted by risky military adventurism.  However it’s analyzed, the people of post-war Japan have done very well out of their “pacifist” constitution and even with his double-chamber supermajority, constitutional revision was no simple thing, a change requiring a national referendum and the opinion polls indicated there was no certainty voters would approve what would have been the be the first change to the document which has been the nation’s basic law for some seventy-five years.  It is now the world’s oldest, un-amended constitution.

Under the terms of Article 9, the Japanese people “…forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes".  That would seem to make illegal the waging of offensive war, confirmed by the phrase “The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized” but Article 9 also stipulates "…land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained".  Article 9 needs obviously to be read in conjunction with more recent documents, given the Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF) consists of: Ground Self-Defense Force (Rikujou Jieitai, GSDF; includes aviation), Maritime Self-Defense Force (Kaijou Jieitai, MSDF; includes naval aviation), Air Self-Defense Force (Koukuu Jieitai, ASDF); Japan Coast Guard (Ministry of Land, Transport, Infrastructure and Tourism) (2021) with an establishment of approximately 240,000 active personnel (145,000 Ground; 45,000 Maritime; 45,000 Air; 4,000 Joint Forces); 14,000 Coast Guard (2021).

JSDF helicopter carrier Hyūga (DDH-181) on exercises with a US carrier strike group.  Listed as an escort ship according to JSDF naming conventions, the two Hyūga-class carriers are the largest largest ships commissioned by the Japanese navy since the Second World War.

The emphasis admittedly is certainly on self-defense because the official overseas deployment in January 2022 stood at 175, all attached to the US base in Djibouti (2021).  Still, most analysts rate the JSDF as the fifth most powerful (in non-nuclear capability) military on the planet so the idea that “…land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained” clearly needs a bit of mental gymnastics to be understood.  Indeed, in the years immediately after Japan regained its sovereignty in 1954, some black-letter law judges in lower courts felt compelled to declare the JSDF unconstitutional but appellate courts found a number of ways to rationalize matters and have always regarded it as a political matter, declining to be involved and in recent years it’s never been tested.  Political it certainly is, the US, authors of Article 9 (in the years before the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) conquered mainland China), soon began to review its position, re-equipping the embryonic forces which would become the JSDF, the constitutional constraints apparently no impediment.  In the years since, the US has more than once encouraged Japan to amend Article 9, the Pentagon not unhappy at the thought of the JSDF’s impressive capabilities being able to augment US forces in overseas deployments.  Those capabilities may be more impressive still, some analysts claiming the country has the capacity to commission and equip existing delivery systems with nuclear warheads within weeks or even days, depending on who is running the numbers.  According to some, lurking deep in (the inevitably secret underground) bunkers, the warheads lie in an almost complete state, awaiting only the placement of the weapons-grade plutonium.  A marvelous conspiracy theory, no evidence has ever been presented other than the circumstantial matters of technical capability and a supposed ability use the capacity of the local nuclear industry for the purpose.  It became an especially interesting theory after the passage of a “Regional Affairs” law in 1999 which permitted Japan automatically to participate as "rear support", were the US to be engaged in armed conflict involving "regional affairs”.  Nobody has ever suggested the South China Sea is anything but a “regional affair”.

Neither Beijing nor Seoul have suggested Tokyo is planning a second attempt at an East-Asia Co-prosperity Sphere but a change meaning Japan can again declare or wage war remains controversial at home and abroad although given how the force has evolved since 1954 and the doubtless ability of Japanese governments to be most expansive in just what “regional” means, the status of Article 9 may be less significant than once it appeared.  As things transpired, the implications of Mr Abe’s rare dual chamber supermajority remained unexplored and he retired from office in 2020 as Japan’s longest-serving prime-minister.

In praise of dieting: Lindsay Lohan before and after.

Weimar

Weimar (pronounced vahy-mahr, wahy-mahr, veye-mahr or weye-mahr)

(1) A city in Thuringia, in central Germany, the scene (in 1919) of the adoption of the constitution of the German state which came (retrospectively) to be known as the Weimar Republic.

(2) A German surname (of habitational origin).

(3) As Weimar Republic, The sovereign German republic (1918-1933), successor state to the German Empire (1871-1918 and now sometimes referred to as the “Second Reich”) and predecessor to the Nazi regime (the “Third Reich”, 1933-1945).

Pre 1100: The construct was the Old High German wīh (holy; sacred) + meri (sea; lake; pond; standing water, swamp).  The name can therefore be analysed as something like “holy pond” or “sacred lake” but what religious significance this had or which aquatic feature was involved is not known.  A settlement in the area of what is now Weimar has existed since at least the early Middle Ages and there is a document dated 999 which makes reference to the town as Wimaresburg but how long this, or some related form had be in use is unknown.  Over time, the changes presumably reflected as desire for convenience and simplification (not an imperative always noted in evolution of the German language) and during the early centuries of the second millennium the place seems to have been known as Wimares, Wimari & Wimar before finally becoming Weimar.  In a manner not unusual in the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806), it was the seat of the County of Weimar, one of the administrative and commercial centres of Thuringia but in 1062 merged with the County of Orlamünde to form Weimar-Orlamünde, which existed until 1346 when the Thuringian Counts' War (a squabble between several local barons) erupted.  In the settlement which followed, Weimar was taken by the Wettin clan as an agreed fief and over time developed into a major city.  Weimar is a proper noun, Weimarization & Weimarize are nouns and Weimarian is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is Weimars.

One native to or an inhabitant of Weimar is a Weimarer (strong, genitive Weimarers, plural Weimarer, feminine Weimarerin).  The adjective Weimarian (of or relating to the Weimar period (1918-1933) in German can be used in any context but is most often applied to the art & culture associated with the era rather than politics or economics.  The comparative is “more Weimarian”, the superlative “most Weimarian”).  The noun Weimarization (a state of economic crisis leading to political upheaval and extremism) is used exclusively to describe the political and financial turmoil of the Weimar years.  The verb Weimarize (to cause to undergo Weimarization) is the companion term and is applied in much the same was as a word like “Balkanize” as a convenient word which encapsulates much in a way no other can.  The Weimaraner is a breed of dog, bred originally in the region as a hunting dog, the construct being Weimar + the German suffix -aner (denoting “of this place”).

In a constitutional sense, the Weimar Republic came into existence on 11 August 1919 when the national assembly of the German state met in the city to adopt the new Weimar Constitution.  Despite that, many historians use the label to cover the whole period between abdication on 9 November 1918 by Wilhelm II (1859 1941; German emperor (Kaiser) & King of Prussia 1888-1918) and the Nazis taking office on 30 January 1933.  The constitution created what structurally was a fairly conventional federal republic (known officially as the Deutsches Reich (German Reich)), the constituent parts of which were the historic Länder (analogous with the states in systems like the US or Australia though the details of the power sharing differed), each with their own governments, assemblies and constitutions.  Historians regards the inherent weakness of the structure as one of the factors which contributed to the political instability, economic turmoil and social unrest for which the era is remembered but the external forces are thought to have been a greater influence, notably the harsh terms imposed by the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and the extraordinary level of war reparations, the latter particularly associated with the hyper-inflation of 1923.  However, it was a time of unusual social & political freedom and there was an outpouring of innovative cultural creativity.  One thing which tends to be obscured by what came later was that by 1928 the system had been stabilized and the economy was stable.  In the last election prior to the Wall Street Crash (1929), the Nazi vote has slumped to 3% and the party was an outlier with few prospects and it was only the depression of the early 1930s which doomed Weimar.

Lindsay Lohan in court, Los Angeles, 2011.

Actually, rather than the pleasant city in Thuringia which lent the constitution its name, it was Berlin, the national and Prussian capital which came most to be associated with the artistic and sexual experimentation of the republic.  Although most of went on in the place was little different than in other conservative German cities it was the small but highly visible numbers of those enjoying the excesses which attracted attention.  In his novel Down There on a Visit (1962) Christopher Isherwood (1904–1986) wrote of the sort of warning respectable folk would in the 1920s offer to anyone who seemed to need the advice:

“Christopher - in the whole of Thousand Nights and One Night, in the most shameless rituals of the Tantra, in the carvings on the Black Pagoda, in the Japanese brothel-pictures, in the vilest perversions of the oriental mind, you couldn’t find anything more nauseating than what goes on there, quite openly, every day. That city is doomed, more surely than Sodom ever was."  And then and there I made a decision - one that was to have a very important effect on the rest of my life. I decided that, no matter how, I would get to Berlin just as soon as ever I could and that I would stay there a long, long time.

Weimar art: Der Künstler mit zwei erhängten Frauen (The Artist with Two Hanged Women), watercolour and graphite on paper by Rudolf Schlichter (1890-1955).   

Isherwood left London by the afternoon train for Berlin on 14 March 1929, taking a room next to the Hirschfeld Institute for Sexual Science from which he explored the city’s “decadence and depravity” enjoying just about every minute and by his own account every gay bar and club, of which there were many.  That niche was only one of many to which the Berlin of Weimer catered, all fetishes seemingly there from morphine, cocaine and opium houses to a club at which membership was restricted to a “coven of coprophagists [who] gorged a prostitute on chocolate, gave her a laxative and settled down to a feast.”  Actually, at the time, there was plenty of depravity among the Nazis, however much the public platform of the party might stress traditional values and they were as condemnatory as the Pope of such as communists, homosexuals and Freemasons (The Roman Catholic Church among the institutions Hitler admired along with the British Empire and comrade Stalin (and Stalin really was a construct)).  Indeed, in his writings and the recollections of his contemporaries about his discussions, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) didn’t much dwell on moral matters but he would spend much effort condemning those aspects of German culture he believed the Weimar generation were corrupting including “modernist architecture, Dadaist art, Jewish psychoanalysis, experimental theatre, short shirts, lipstick, bobbed hair, dances like the foxtrot and jazz” (the last of which he derided as “a degenerate negroid sound”).

Weimar art: Sonnenfinsternis (Eclipse of the Sun (1926)), oil on canvas by George Grosz (1893-1959).  Weimar was not untouched by surrealism.

The lurid tales of Weimar Berlin from the diaries of Christopher Isherwood et al now entertain rather than shock as once they would have managed but the expressionist art which flourished at the time remains striking.  A stridently experimental fork of the European avant-garde, the Weimar artists chose to ignore traditional aesthetic conventions and according to some critics the painters were fascinated by ugliness, the composers by atonal dissonance.  They were also artists who were predominately urban and focused upon the city, its decadence and corrosive influence upon the individual.  The Weimar period was the time also when the phrase magischer Realismus (magic realism) was coined, more accurately to describe what had come to be known as the Neue Sachlichkeit (new objectivity).  Magic realism is now thought of as a literary genre in which fantastical elements are interpolated into life-like depictions of the world but the first use was in 1925 by German art historian Franz Roh (1890–1965) who observed many artists in the Weimar Republic were rejecting (or at least ignoring) the idealistic style (fashionable before World War I (1914-1918) and which had combined naturalistic depiction with an amplification of beauty and virtue), in favor of something recognizably realistic yet blended with uncanny elements.  Roh’s understanding of magic realism was at least partially an acknowledgement of technology: the influence of photography and moving pictures (film).  Then as now, there was debate about whether there was some point at which realism stopped and surrealism began but the distinction was that magic realism was a distortion of the actual material world for some political or other didactic purpose whereas surrealism explored the abstractions which lurked in the subconscious mind. 

In the Weimar style: The Rt Hon Theresa May MP (2023), a portrait of (Lady May, b 1956; UK prime-minister 2016-2019) by Saied Dai (b 1958).

Painted by Tehran-born Saied Dai, it will hang in  Portcullis House, Parliament's office complex where many MPs have their offices and not since Graham Sutherland’s (1903–1980) portrait of Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) was unveiled in 1954 has a painting of one of the country’s prime-ministers attracted so much interest, the reception of such works not usually much more than perfunctory.  Sutherland was commissioned (as second choice; Sir Herbert Gunn's (1893–1964) fee deemed too high) by the ad hoc “Churchill Joint Houses of Parliament Gift Committee” to paint a portrait to mark the prime-minister’s eightieth birthday and on 30 November 1954, the members of the Commons & the Lords assembled in Westminster Hall to mark the occasion.  Paid for by parliamentary subscription (the idea of paying for such a thing from their own pockets would appal today’s politicians), it was intended the work would remain with Churchill until his death after which it would be gifted to the state to hang in the Palace of Westminster.

Winston Churchill (1954) by Graham Sutherland.

Things didn’t work out that way.  Churchill, not anyway much enjoying the aging process loathed the painting and felt betrayed by the artist, the preliminary sketches he’d been shown hinting at something rather different.  Initially, he sulked, first saying he wouldn’t attend the event, then that he’d turn up only if the painting wasn’t there but his moods often softened with a little coercion and he agreed to make a short speech of thanks at the unveiling, his most memorable lines being: “The portrait is a remarkable example of modern art. It certainly combines force and candour.”  It wasn’t hard to read between the lines and when delivered to Churchill’s country house, the painting was left in a storeroom, never unwrapped and never again to be seen, Lady Churchill (Clementine Churchill (Baroness Spencer-Churchill; 1885–1977) in 1956 incinerating it in what was described as “a huge bonfire”.  That she'd executed one of history’s most practical examples of art criticism wasn't revealed until 1979.  Curiously, when first she saw it in 1954 she admired the work, Somerset Maugham (1874–1965) who was with her at the time noting she “liked the portrait very much” and was much “moved and full of praise for it.”  Her view soon changed.

The better-received May portrait was commissioned this time by the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art at a cost of Stg£28,000 (in adjusted terms somewhat less than the 1,000 guineas paid in 1954; this time all from the tax payer) and Mrs May (she doesn’t use the title she gained in 2020 upon her husband being knighted (for “political service”) in Boris Johnson’s (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) remarkable (and belated) Dissolution Honours List) was reported as saying she thought the portrait a “huge honour”.  When interviewed, the artist said his “…aim was to produce not just a convincing physical likeness, but also a psychological characterization, both individual and yet archetypal - imbued with symbolism and atmosphere.  A good painting needs to be a revelation and also paradoxically, an enigma. It should possess an indefinable quality - in short, a mystery.”

A work of careful composition, critics have found in it influences from the Renaissance and mannerism but it’s most obviously in the spirit of the German expressionists identified with the Weimar Republic and the addition of a convallaria majalis (the "lily of the valley" which flowers in May) was the sort of touch they would have admired.  Interestingly, Mr Dai expressed relief he’d not been asked to render Mr Johnson on canvas which is understandable because while an artist could permit their interpretative imagination free reign and produce something memorable, Mr Johnson over the decades has been a series of living, breathing caricatures and it would be challenge for anyone to capture his “psychological characterization”.  The Weimaresque May in oil on canvas works so well because it’s so at variance with the one-dimensional image of the subject which has so long been in the public mind.  Whether it will change the perception of Mrs May in the minds of many isn’t known but critics have mostly admired the work and views of her premiership do seem to have been revised in the light of the rare displays of ineptitude which have marked the time in office of her three successors.

After Weimar: Der Bannerträger (The Standard Bearer (circa 1936)) oil on plywood by Hubert Lanzinger (1880-1950).  The post card with the inscription Ob im Glück oder Unglück, ob in der Freiheit oder im Gefängnis, ich bin meiner Fahne, die heute des Deutschen Reiches Staatsflagge ist, treu geblieben (Whether in good fortune or misfortune, whether in freedom or in prison, I have remained loyal to my flag, which is now the state flag of the German Reich) was issued in 1939, one of many such uses of the image which depicts Hitler as a knight in shining armor on horseback, bearing a Swastika flag.  As he did whenever a  postage stamp with his image was sold, the Führer received a tiny fee as a royalty; multiplied by millions, he gleaned quite a income from his pictures.  In one of the many examples of the fakery which underpinned Nazism (and fascism in general), Hitler was “terrible on horseback".

Der Bannerträger was an example of the type of art which proliferated in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, works intended to enforce the personality cult around Hitler and comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and reinforce the messaging of both regimes.  Hitler, although he dutifully acknowledged them when they were presented, really did regard them as a kind of kitsch and although he understood their utility as propaganda pieces, they aroused in him little interest.  What he really liked in a painting was beauty as he defined it and in this his differentiation was something like his views on architecture where the standards imposed on the “functional” varied from his expectations of the “representational”.  Hitler would admire modern architecture rendered in steel & glass if it was being used for a factory or warehouse; there it was a matter of efficiency and improving working conditions but for the public buildings of the Reich, he insisted on classical motifs in granite.  In painting, he distinguished between what was essentially “advertising” and “real” art which the expressionism of the Weimar era certainly was not; the “…sky is not green, dogs are not blue and anyone who paints them as such has a sick mind” was his summary of thought on the Weimar art movement.  His preference was for (1) the Neoclassical which drew inspiration from the Greek and Roman art of Antiquity and his fondness extended not only to the voluptuous female nudes historians like to mention but also to the idealized, heroic figures representing nobility and heroism; with these he identified, (2) realistic landscapes, particularly those of the German countryside at its most lovely, (3) German Academic Realism which produced intricately detailed realistic representations of subjects, (4) depictions from Norse mythology which created a link between the legends and the idealized vision of the Nazi project and (5), traditional portraiture, if realistic and flattering (certainly demanded of the many painted of him).

Women in Weimer art: Margot (1924), oil on canvas by Rudolf Schlichter (1890-1955) (left), Porträt der Tänzerin Anita Berber (Portrait of the Dancer Anita Berber (1925)), oil and tempera on plywood by Otto Dix (1891–1969) (centre) and Bean Ingram (1928), oil on canvas by Herbert Gurschner (1901-1975) (right). 

Books of which the Nazis didn’t approve could be burned and the proscribed music not played but the practical public servants in the finance ministry knew much of the Entartete Kunst (degenerate art) removed from German (and later Austrian) galleries was highly sought by collectors in other countries and valuable foreign exchange was obtained from these sales (some of which in the post-war years proved controversial because of the provenance of some pieces sold then and later; they turned out to have been “obtained” from occupied territories or Jews).  Hitler despised Dadaism, Expressionism, Cubism, and Surrealism and expected others in the Reich to share his view but an exhibition of Entartete Kunst in Munich in 1937 proved an embarrassing one-off for the regime because people from around the country travelled to see it and it was the most attended art show of the Third Reich.  It was Weimar’s revenge.