A Blast Against the Monarchy
A short essay outlining some of the reasons Britain should become a republic
"To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity." Tom Paine, Common Sense, Philadelphia 1776
Thomas Jefferson's grave monument at Monticello. Jefferson was correct in his views on monarchy, much less so on People of Colour and Native Americans, whom he admired but as President set the conditions for their annihillation with the Louisiana Purchase - see his second inaugural address.
Monticello is a "must visit", both to think and admire the beauty of the local Virginian countryside. Take a look at Charlottesville too, and the University of Virginia's wonderful buildings. Try and incorporate a drive along Skyline Drive.
When compared with half a hundred other countries in the world, the UK is a good place to live. But that does’t mean the country is trapped in some sort of Panglossian idyll, and no reform is necessary. The UK is in fact a country crying out for truly radical political reform. Flying back to the UK from abroad, I am often struck by a feeling of going back in time - back to a semi-feudal society, where birth is as important as achievement, where the dead have just as much influence over what happens as the living, and where political and constitutional progress is strangled by the suffocating and all smothering blanket of a top heavy and anachronistic constitution, itself hundreds of years old, and irrelevant to our present wants.
I will argue that the monarchy in the UK is the root of so much that is wrong, both with the constitution itself and the society and hierarchy that it spawns, that reform really must begin here; the monarchy must be abolished and replaced with a president who holds reserve powers which will only be used in a times of political deadlock, elected by the people, in tandem with a written constitution. We should retain our parliamentary system whereby a prime minister is obliged to sit and to answer questions directly in the House of Commons and reform the House of Lords into a democratic body (and change its name). We must learn the lessons of our American cousins' republic, and poach those aspects that are desirable and reject those that have not worked out so well. We can also learn lessons from the Indian and Israeli constitutions, which have the ceremonial President plus Parliamentary system of government which I think appropriate for Britain.
Why? There are many, many reasons. Let us start by examining whether having a hereditary head of state, (whereby a single family claims the right to rule over us and our descendants, for ever), is compatible with democracy. In the UK constitution there are various powers which are part of what is called the “Royal Prerogative”. The UK constitutions baseline was absolute monarchy. All Parliamentary authority has had to be wrested away from the monarch by a series of wars, Acts of Parliament, constitutional settlements and precedent or convention, worked out over hundreds of years and beyond the scope of this essay. This process however, has left behind substantial powers in the monarch's hands, which are exercised by the prime minister of the day, or in legal terms, by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister. It amounts to the same thing - the PM calls the shots. But the exercise of prerogative powers are not subject to scrutiny by the courts - and there are some very substantial prerogative powers. The power to make war for instance. Thus the UK can go to war on the say so of the PM, and although parliamentarians can moan about it, the act of going to war in not challengeable in the courts, or parliament, unless the government chooses to raise the issue and submit it to a vote, as prerogative powers are subject to Crown immunity, which means there is no enforceable oversight. Parliament could in theory legislate, but the way parliament works, if the government of the day doesn't want it, it doesn't happen. There are large chunks of the constitution which can be not be litigated upon, as being part of the royal prerogative they are out of reach of the courts. These are not trivial powers. The more important powers are, the more important it is that they should be democratically exercised. In the UK the opposite is the case, because of the existence of the residual powers of the monarchy.
The definition of these powers is also flexible, in the sense that if you can find a precedent, however unlikely and far back in the mists of time, you can do it. This flexibility is claimed as being a great virtue, as the constitution can bend and adapt to any given situation, and can thus rumble on for ever. When was the constitution ever interpreted in favour of the governed? All this "great virtue" means is that the rules are changed to accommodate the wishes of the rulers whenever they so desire it. A recent example is a good illustration, as any sane reading of the law shows the civil marriage of Charles and Camilla to be specifically prohibited in England. The Prince of Wales wants to marry in a way forbidden by law? Fine, we'll "reinterpret" the law to allow it to happen. All that would be necessary to avoid transgressing the law as it was previously understood, is that the happy couple should get on the train for Scotland, where a civil marriage between them would be legal, as indeed Princess Anne did in order to comply with the law. To avoid this onerous burden our constitution is changed. A trivial example perhaps, but a good instance of how the present constitution can be so easily ignored and distorted, and how for such a pitiful reason our constitution is thrown aside like so much waste paper. in this case just to appease the desire of one man to appear grand, with the collusion of inept courtiers and a fawning government. A consolidated, written constitution, where powers and responsibilities are clearly set out and can be litigated upon is a far more desirable situation. What could be less desirable that the government making up the rules as it goes along, always for its own convenience?
"For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." Common Sense
So if we accept the desirability of a written constitution, as opposed to one which can be bent in favour of the rulers whenever expedient to the government, would we write one that appoints as head of state the members of one family, to carry on through the generations and lasting for ever, no matter how ill suited, crazy or inept they turn out to be? Would it not be better to elect a suitable person as head of state, and limit their tenure, so the will of the people (ie democracy) is the determining factor, expressed on a regular basis? Which makes more sense? Obviously the latter. If we are going to be a democracy, let us be a democracy. Monarchy and the hereditary principle is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
"But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind." Common Sense
Do we really wish to carry on organizing ourselves in the present manner? That the government should have powers that are not challengeable by the ordinary citizen with a grievance, who may have been the victim of an abusive exercise of power? The answer is patently no.
It can not be denied that even countries with a written constitution have their problems. For instance, the president of the USA is now claiming he has the power to lock people up without trial for as long as he likes, without due process or Habeas Corpus rights. This remarkable claim will clearly not stand the test of litigation, as it is entirely unconstitutional and undermines the whole original purpose of the US constitution, which is to prevent tyranny ever reappearing in that country. But the point is they have a written constitution which can be litigated upon. Already President Bush's outrageous claims are being undermined by the US Supreme Court, even though the Court itself has been stuffed with extreme right wingers.
These defects in other systems are often cited as a reason why the UK should not follow suit and adopt a written constitution, and that we should stick with our present system. Why should we mindlessly repeat the mistakes of others? No system can be perfect, but that does not mean we should not strive for perfection. We are capable of learning from other countries' experiences. If we accept as a given that democracy is desirable, should not all institutions of state be as democratic as possible? This rules out monarchy. The real reason the powers that be and the vested interests do not want a written constitution is thus revealed - any serious examination of the present system would lead to an unwelcome increase in accountability, whereas under the present system power can be exercised conveniently shielded from democratic accountability, under the guise of the royal prerogative.
Monarchy may have been an appropriate form of government once, but is it so in the 21st century? If it is incompatible with democracy, should we keep it? I believe not, and the head of state should be elected, in line with all other government positions. This is what democracy is.
The monarchy also has distorting and bad effects on society as a whole, as the system strains and bends to accommodate it and the self-contradictory society it spawns. It is a huge cuckoo in the nest, dominating everything with its demands for deference, money and privilege, while the society under its yoke works to support it, to that society's own great detriment, and all for the benefit of a system that is bankrupt of legitimacy and which is not worth preserving.
For example, another deleterious effect of having an hereditary head of State is the preservation of so much that is irrelevant to our present circumstances. In the UK they still hand out state honours based on the Empire, so one can be awarded an “Order of the British Empire”, or, apparently a step up, a “Commander of the British Empire”, plus innumerable others, all with equally meaningless and irrelevant names, but which entitle you to place letters after your name. This is a way the monarchy can associate itself with success, while simultaneously inviting us to participate in a daydream when the Union Jack flew over India and everything was peachy. Civil servants, (whom frankly many will never have heard of), sporting heroes, businessmen, politicians and anyone else you can think of including dinner ladies and lollipop men, all are invited to Buckingham Palace, the cameras flash, knees are bent, shoulders are dubbed etc. etc. in a ceremonial, pompous and demeaning little tableau. The royals bask in the reflected glory. Not only that, but each and every one of the honorees are given a share of the spoils and an interest in the preservation of the system. The cost to the state is a bit of metal with ribbon attached, plus ten minutes of whoever is presiding's time. By astutely recruiting followers in this fashion the monarchy ensures the survival of its privileges. The cost to itself is nothing, The cost to society is large. By subjugating themselves in this way, participants are shoring up a system that means to impose rank, the one constant theme being the supremacy of the monarchy.
"Taxes on the very necessaries of life enable an endless tribe of idle princes and princesses to pass with stupid pomp before a gaping crowd, (Link), who almost worship the very parade which costs them so dear." (Link). Rights of Man 1791
Now let's look at the House of Lords, the second chamber of the UK parliament, which is not elected. That’s right, the second chamber is not elected, but largely appointed by the prime minister of the day, apart from ninety members who are there by hereditary right. In a true democracy, the bald statement of these facts should be enough to guarantee reform. What could be less democratic? What institution could the wit of man devise that was less affected by the wishes of the governed, and more influenced by the whims of the established authorities? It is self evidently an anachronism, a hang over from long gone days when priorities were very different and an affront to any belief in basic democracy. The patronage it places in the hands of the Prime Minister, who appoints the non-elected members (there is a fig leaf "independent" committee, appointed by guess who?) is an affront to any notion of democracy. I trust I do not have to explain why. And yet it is defended by the royalists - why? Because reforming this institution, and I do not mean the laughable efforts of the present labour government, would leave only one target left - the monarchy. The monarchy is the fount of all that is undemocratic and authoritarian, it is the vehicle by which hereditary authority is maintained, and very successful it is too. In the twenty first century, here in Britain, our laws are influenced by people who were never elected by anyone, and therefore lack any legitimacy whatsoever in democratic terms. The Lords who inhabit the benches of the house of lords are the representatives of a hierarchy in society, founded on birth, which persists, unbelievably, to this day. We could reform the Lords by requiring its members to be elected tomorrow, so why is it not done?
There are two answers. It is an outer wall in the defence of the monarchy. To challenge the principle of unaccountable hereditary power here, whether by inheritance or appointment under the royal prerogative, would undermine the case for retaining the monarchy. Secondly it is a means for spiriting into government people who were not elected by anyone, using the powers of patronage inherent in the royal prerogative, thus undermining the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.
Thus the old concept of power, inherited and unchallengeable, lives on in our society. If you believe in democracy it is impossible not to support an elected second chamber and the abolition of all patronage and inheritance in the selection of its members. Democracy demands reform.
If the monarchy did not exist, would the government be able to argue that the House of Lords should be wholly or partially appointed rather than elected? Of course not. If democracy and law were our guiding light, the idea would be, and is, preposterous.
This leads on on to the adverse effect having a monarchy has on the structure of society in Britain.
Britain is a society grouped into classes, and that system permeates everything. Classes are porous, but the top is the preserve of those born to it, especially the very top, the monarchy. What snob in England would not want some connection to the royal family? One of the ways you can advance your status in society is by doing a lot of bowing and scraping to the established order. This leads to enhanced status among the fellow bowers and scrapers, perhaps even a word in the royal ear or an invitation or whatever. This is absurd and demeaning beyond description - a farcical dance performed by fools too stupid to realize the beat they are dancing to is the rhythm of their own subjugation.
Is it realistic to expect one family to furnish a continuous supply of people who are worthy of this unearned adulation? (And there have been several changes of family, as the system has been broken in the past by unsuitable, not to mention crazy, incumbents). Some of the holders of the office in the past have been clinically insane. Is it sensible to so structure a society that it is possible for a madman to be its head? If we are free, how can we be someone's "subjects"? The word reeks of superiority on one hand and inferiority on the other. Now that Britain is a multi-cultural society, is it good enough to achieve equality for everybody by all being inferior together, as "subjects" ? Surely it would be better if we were all just equal citizens, enjoying identical rights before the law.
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Declaration of Independence
And then there is the British aristocracy. Some are pleasant, some unpleasant, some bright, some dim. That is the point. They are the same as the rest of the excluded-from-the-highest-table part of society - by far the greater part of the population. The distinction is purely artificial. In fact they are exactly the same, the 'elevated' nature of their birth makes no difference in reality, if you can see past the flim-flam. Is this democratic? Of course not. It is an entirely spurious, man made construct, which being the invention of man is just as easily undone as done. We have a situation where our society is hobbled by artificial divisions, made before people have even been born. We could abolish the aristocracy with the stroke of a pen, and the vast majority of the population would benefit, not least by abolishing the notion amongst some at the lower end of the class divide, that people "better than themselves" exist. Why is the aristocracy defended by the royalists? Because it is yet another outer wall of defence, for if the aristocracy goes, the next target must inevitably be the monarchy itself. Meanwhile, we all live under this absurd order, and the more foolish devote their lives and resources to advancement in a worthless enterprise of attaining noble rank, which they delude themselves into believing is somehow worthwhile. These people are living in a dreamland, a sort of Disneyland, whereas the more enlightened will merely ignore them. Their talents would be better employed in more worthwhile enterprises.
"What is called monarchy always appears to me a silly contemptible thing. I compare it to something kept behind a curtain, about which there is a great deal of bustle and fuss, and a wonderful air of seeming solemnity; but, when, by any accident, the curtain happens to be open, and the company see what it is, they burst into laughter." Rights of Man, part 2, 1792
In conclusion, the fact that the changes that are necessary, the election of the head of state, the abolition of the aristocracy and the adoption of a written constitution, seems radical is an indication of how backward and inappropriate the UK constitution has become. Another thing you may care to consider is that the quotes on this page are just as relevant now as they were when they were written - two and a quarter centuries ago. Need any more be said about the stifling effect monarchy as a system of government has on political progress and change? The point of the monarchy is the fact that in theory we are saddled with it for ever.
It is over 200 years since our American cousins saw through this charade. It is about time we, the Brits, followed suit.
Last word to Tom Paine:
"Monarchy would not have continued so many ages in the world, had it not been for the abuses it protects. It is the master-fraud, which shelters all others. By admitting a participation of the spoil, it makes itself friends; and when it ceases to do this it will cease to be the idol of courtiers." Rights of Man 1792
Links:
1) Read Common Sense on the web
2) Lewes, Sussex, UK
3) Schoolnet UK
4) Media Visionaries
5) Thomas Jefferson
6) The Putney Debates
7) John Locke
8) Montesquieu
9) Centre for Citizenship