.svg.png)
Monarchies aren't democracies!
While many republicans won't view a government as a true democracy if there is a monarch, this can be very much debated. Take the UK government for example. You have the Prime Minister, currently David Cameron, who is the Head of Government. However, he does not hold the power to create laws, or to abolish existing laws. He can't even declare war by himself, or sign peace treaties, or create diplomatic ties with another country (well, that last one he can somewhat do). He can not do any of those tasks without first seeking permission from the monarch, or as it currently is, Queen Elizabeth II. So, in effect, the Queen dictates what the government does, and therefore, the politics of the United Kingdom (or any other monarch in any other constitutional monarchy).
But no. This is just how the Kingdom would work theoretically. As it is in practice, the Queen would allow the Prime Minister to do any of these things if the Prime Minister has support for it. The Queen will quite happily pass a bill into law after it has passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. So why is the Queen relevant? Surely you can just cut the monarch out of the question, and a bill passes as soon as it is voted on in the House of Commons and House of Lords? No.
(C) Filibuster Cartoons
Constitutional Monarchs are a fail-safe for democracy
What happens when a party gets in to power, then goes absolutely crazy and starts passing all sort of bills that the people of the country are against? An MP just happens to slip a crazy law, such as you are no longer allow cute kittens or puppies, and they must all be killed, into the voting process in Parliament. The bill then just happens to be passed in both Houses. Oh dear - without the Queen, they can get away with everything! But ha - the Queen is there. Should such a bill be passed, and the people of the country are very much against it, there the Queen is to stop the bill from going into law. As an added perk, the Queen also has the power to kick the Prime Minister out of government, and call another general election. What-ho, the country is saved! God save the Que-- oh no, she has gone crazy, too!
Failure of Monarchies
Now, where a republic has its perks is that, whatever the leader, they switch around every few years. And, as is the case for the United States, a President is limited to only two terms (approximately 8 years) in power. So if your leader does go absolutely cookoo, you just wait for the next vote, and they're out. In a monarchy, if you have a bad monarch who goes 'round the bend, you have two options: a) sit tight, and hope all is well (either waiting for your death, or for the monarch's), or b) vive la revolution! Go with option A, and you'll have a pretty miserable part of life. Go for option B, and you suddenly have to put in a lot of effort, and over-throw the monarch, and most likely the entire royal family. If you're lucky, you'll just be able to get rid of the monarch, and the get heir to sit on the throne. For this reason, republics do have some perks.
Monarchy vs Presidency
This one is a little harder to discuss. A Presidency could be a multitude of different sorts. You have the President of the United States, who is the Head of State and Head of Government, you have the President of France, who is just a Head of State, and you have the President of the Russian Federation, who just seems to wield all sorts of crazy power and offices. The President of France is probably the only president with which you can compare their position with that of the Monarch of the United Kingdom, purely because both of them are Head of States, but not Head of Governments, so naturally, they perform similar tasks to one-another.
A major "thing" (for want of a better word) is the profits of both. Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, "own" the Crown Estates. Now, the reason I have quotation marks around own is that they don't actually own them, but they are lands of the crown (yes, confusing - I know, just bare with me). In 1760, King George III (you Americans were great pals with him...not) gave the crown lands to the government, so long as the government gave him and his successors (Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip included) an annual pension, known as the "Civil List". In 2010, this amounted to £8,259,000 ($13,113,640.20 - €9,854,721.39) for both of them, or £7,800,000 for the Queen, and £359,000 for Prince Philip. Now, this year (2013), this is going to change. There will be a new way to give the monarch money - the "Sovereign Support Grant", which will give millions of pounds to the UK economy. That, added to the fact that the monarch costs the British tax payer less than £0.60 (about $1.00) per year, means that the monarchy is very profitable. And I haven't even mentioned the economy boost that the tourism provided by the monarchy. Unfortunately, the Presidency of France doesn't do this. They do not have lands giving masses of money to the economy. Nor do they have the tourism.
Basically, what I am trying to say is - it would be a very bad idea, especially for the UK economy (and the economy of the other 11 European and world-wide constitutional monarchies that still exist) to abolish the monarchy in favour of a presidency. There seems to be no reason to do it either - the Queen isn't an abusive person with her power. In fact, she uses it so rarely that people question whether it is there at all (though as can be seen in Australia and Canada in the latter-half of the 20th Century, she has used her power (or rather, the Governor-General who acts on the Queen's behalf in the Commonwealth Realms (and yes, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is Queen of Canada, Australia and 14 other countries, too)).
Conclusion
Well, if you have made it this far, you don't have much further to go. While I do like the monarchy, and like the "fail-safe" that it adds to democracy (yes, constitutional monarchies are democracies!), it can be said that they can learn from modern republics. It is nice to have a (supposedly) politically neutral Head of State (the Queen, as is the case in the UK, the President in France), as they can get involved and help the country if the democratic system starts to fail. However, France may have it right here. Their president is voted in, and has little to do with their equivalent of Parliament. For once, I think I can say the French have it sort-of right. If only there was a way to elect a King/Queen, and still keep the comfort the monarchy gives the UK today.
Without further ado, I do help this article has helped you to see some of the pros, and some of the cons of monarchy. However, I do feel - despite many republicans stating that it is a medieval organisation that is undemocratic and irrelevant - that the monarchy is as relevant today as it has always been.
Sources:
Queen Elizabeth II's power - The Guardian Article
Queen Elizabeth II exercising her power - 1975 Australian constitutional crisis
Crown revenue - http://www.andywightman.com/docs/civil_list_crown_1901.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment