Why The British Monarchy is a Dignified Part of the Constitution - Essay Example

?The British Monarchy Why The British Monarchy is a dignified part of the Constitution Introduction The British monarchy presents the oldest institutions that began about four centuries earlier than the British parliament. The question that many scholars ask is whether this institution is a dignified part of the British constitution. “This has therefore placed the monarchy, the role it plays and its importance on the hottest sports of the British politics today” (Blain & O'Donnell, 2003). It is quite difficult to ascertain whether in the minds of the British public the British monarchy has played its key role for the last two centuries. “In the plight of this, several scandals have been unearthed eliciting interest among the media and thus an increased call for Republicans making the future of monarchy in question” (Blain & O'Donnell, 2003). In order to get an insight into the present and the future view of the British monarch, it is important to involve the composition of the entire British government that is the monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the discussion. Finally, the paper will discuss the British monarchy under the historical-constitutional context, political context and the cultural aspects with a view of establishing its constitutional validity in the UK. “During the 17th century, British monarchs were empowered to make and pass laws governing land” (Cannon, & Griffiths, 2000). The monarch was therefore an executive one. It is however worth noting that from the beginning of the 18th century, due to their impartiality, the monarch served as a constitutional monarch. Rules and conventions were drafted that would bind them from making impartial judgements. In addition to this, the monarch’s constitution power was limited during the reign of Queen Victoria. “The main role of the monarch was mainly that of advisory to the ministers” (Cannon, & Griffiths, 2000). The power of royal prerogative that was initially vested in the monarch was transferred to the executive. “Therefore, prerogative supremacies such as the authority to proclaim war, make peace, dissolve parliament, remove and appoint the prime minister, judges, civil servants, and commanders in the Armed Forces are delegated to the executive”(Cannon & Griffiths, 2000). As the head of state of the commonwealth nations, the monarch has powers to confer titles, braveries and honours to persons who qualify. It is important to note that the monarch plays a key role in constituent organizations such as the Armed Forces and the Church of England. “In the armed forces, the monarch acts as the commander and as such, soldiers during their swearing in to work swear allegiance to the crown but not to the state” (Cannon & Griffiths, 2000). In the Church of England, the monarch plays the role of a governor. In addition to the constitutional roles of the monarch, there are non-constitutional roles that the monarch plays. “The queen for instance acts as a symbol of national unity where she is expected to preside over important state ceremonies as well as representing Britain in international arenas” (Cannon & Griffiths, 2000). Much of the queen’s work lies on that of representing the state within and outside the UK. This alone raises the profile of the nation raising the interest of both foreign and local tourists. A vital role of the monarch that is imperceptible and unconstitutional is acting as a symbolic head of the British Nation. This role represents the intangible part of the British constitution. It is therefore exciting and preserves the admiration of a large population worldwide. “The monarchy can be described as a dignified part of the British constitution” (Loughlin, 2007). The role of the monarch as enshrined in the British constitution can be examined by looking at various theories of the British state. First, the monarch presents a modern pluralist interaction in governance. “The ancient angle through which the monarch was first viewed has proved impossible” (Cannon & Griffiths, 2000). In fact, the Royal Family from their actions proves fallible unlike the in the ancient times. “In addition, the Royal Family is seen as a group of people attempting to achieve stake through the state” (Cannon & Griffiths, 2000). This group has attempted to remain relevant and influential, staying within power despite their diminishing prehistoric powers and meaning in the current society. This is because the public fully support their existence and relevance in governance. “It is worth noting that the call for and the eventual abolishment of the crown was due to the call buy only a minority of the population; change is not in the minds of the majority of the British population” (Olechnowicz, 2007). “The presence of the monarchy as well as the position of the British Prime minister complicates matters of governance in that, there are conflicting roles that present danger to the capacity of the state to maximize the interest of the majority groups” (Loughlin, 2007). The role of the modern monarchy as an arbiter between different interest groups and the increasing presidential functions of the Prime Minister lacks clarity on who is actually the head of state. “In fact, the executive is becoming a new monarch because of conflicting roles. This is the view of Neo-pluralism theorists” (Blain & O'Donnell, 2003). “Classic Marxists think there is a paradigm shift from the ancient absolute monarchy to the more liberal constitutional regimes” (Loughlin, 2007). This according to Classic Marxists represents the results of the industrial revolution. The move is a true manifestation of societal evolution towards a state of free utopia, which yields benefits in terms of accumulation of capital and improvement of the economy. “Structuralism Marxists regard the monarch as an ideological state apparatus that aid in upholding social stability and conformity” (Olechnowicz, 2007). This idea has for a long period misused by the monarchy as a main ideology theory in which, the ruling class has utilized the monarchy symbol to compel the masses into supporting the system. There is an evolution of a theorist group called the New Right theorists who believe in limiting the influence and role of the state while advocating for a person’s right to liberty. “The New Right theorists unlike the traditional conservatisms’, who prefer preservation of the monarchy as vital in the maintenance of traditional values, view the crown as hostile to the monarchy” (Panton, 2011). In addition, the New Right theorists take a logical slant to the monarch. Thatcher attempted without success to disrupt the commercial dominations from the elites where the neo-liberals did not attempt at all as this was tantamount to damaging British institutions. Even though, the classic theorists focus mainly on those who hold efficient power within the state and not the dignified, as is the case with Constitutional monarchy. “Close studies of who actually the elites are reveal the elites as a group of persons who occupy positions of leadership within the British monarchy and the political system” (Blain & O'Donnell, 2003). As earlier mentioned, the crown has had a decline of power in the last century. Despite these declining powers, the crown has retained its position as part of the British system of government. “According to the elite theorists, the British monarch is a personification of Britain’s aristocratic rule” (Olechnowicz, 2007). The existence of the queen though not influencing any political direction helps control and directs the governing leaders to uphold their eminence. “The great 19th century Reform Acts that were enacted in 1832 and 1867 during the rise of industrial classes of the North and Midlands saw a shift of power away from the monarch to the House of Commons” (Panton, 2011). This saw a reduction of both the monarch and the House of Lords to dignified part of the constitution. Through the Acts, the Monarch was stripped off the powers of controlling the Commons or having direct interference with the government affairs. Following these changes, the modern monarch in reference to political power and government has become irrelevant. “Nevertheless, some elites still argue the monarch retains vital elements of superiority in the Briton political culture in terms of symbolic roles it plays” (Olechnowicz, 2007). It further argues that the presence of the monarchy reinforces democracy and sets specific standards for code of conduct and decorum. What role does the monarch then play in Britain? Ceremonial roles “The state has retained substantive amount of pomp and ceremonies such as the state opening of the British government, trooping the colour and the queen’s birthday for the monarchy” (Panton, 2011). This is carried out with an aim of upholding loyalty to the state and the nation. Through these ceremonies, the monarch acts as a symbol of unity. The presence of the monarchy in such ceremonies plays a constitutional role as a national icon-adding color to the lives of the ordinary citizens. This maintains social togetherness and national stability of the UK. Head of state This is a formal role turned ceremonial. “The queen performs the role of entertaining visiting heads of state and world leaders” (Panton, 2011). The Queen also opens and closes common wealth events such as games as the head of Commonwealth nations. She also performs the roles of presenting awards, visiting other parts of the kingdom just to mention a few. It is important to note that most actions the queen undertakers or upon the advice of her ministers. “Therefore, the queen is viewed as acting upon the advices of the ministers in such matters relating to prerogative matters such as appointment of King Professors (Regis).Government activities run in the name of the queen though not run by the queen herself”(Olechnowicz, 2007). “It is important to note that the monarchy provides the British government with a sense of continuity since governments come and varnish while the queen remains in position” (Blain & O'Donnell, 2003). This continuity is an important aspect of governance. “This is because through continuing and long service to the nation as the queen; she gathers enormous experience as an advisor to the prime minister on important matters concerning the country” (Panton, 2011). “The monarchy, in the absence of the government, covers up the void and solves a constitutional crisis whenever there is a hung in parliament” (Olechnowicz, 2007). Further, as the head of the Armed Forces, the monarchy holds the senior ceremonial military post. “As the ceremonial head of the military, the armed forces as well as the police swear allegiance to the crown rather than the state and hence delinking them form political influence or alignment” (Panton, 2011). “In addition, the queen acts as the head of the Church of England and serves as a defender of faith. In the recent times, the role of the monarchy has faced criticisms probably due to the post reform movements and increasing multi-faith society” (Cannon, 2009). The analysis provided by Bagehot in the documentary ‘The English Constitution’ in 1867, elicits a rough discussion of the British monarchy” (Cannon, 2009). The documentary paints a picture of a British society that portrays a negative attitude towards the monarchy. “Bagehot’s analysis showed that the actual power was in the hands of the efficient institutions, which include; the cabinet and the prime minister whereas the monarchy was meant to lure the entire British society into respecting the Government and the existing institutions” (Cannon, 2009). According to Bagehot, the executive had long exercised the real power that in the earlier times lay with the monarchy. It is vital to keep in mind that for the sake of continued relevance of the monarchy in Britain, the ordinary citizenry must be wooed into a certain believe that the monarchy actually governs them. “In this regard, the authority of the ruling class will remain a preserve of the Royal families” (Loughlin, 2007). This tantamount to unfair deceive but its unfortunate it will have to happen. “The monarchy will stay put as part of the British government as long as the enlightened members of the society hold the notion that the monarchy is a heart moving representation of the Briton culture and destiny” (Blain & O'Donnell, 2003). Conclusion In conclusion, the existence of the monarchy in the British nation continues to elicit mixed reactions. “Cultural critics hold the notion that the continued existence of the monarch and the ruling class impede development of a self-conscious citizenry” (Loughlin, 2007). They further argue that the monarchy continue to play their own tricks by acting like a friend to the common man and an icon to the people and a symbol to the nation, yet, their major interest is not the people and the nation but themselves. Lastly, the cost of upkeep of the monarchy and the entire royal family and their activities has continued to receive criticisms. “This is a clear indication that the future existence of the monarchy is uncertain” (Cannon & Griffiths, 2000). It is also an indication of a slow death of that the monarchy in Britain. References: CANNON, J. A., & GRIFFITHS, R. A. (2000). The Oxford illustrated history of the British Monarchy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. LOUGHLIN, J. (2007). The British monarchy and Ireland: 1800 to the present. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. CANNON, J. A. (2009). A dictionary of British history. Oxford, Oxford University Press. OLECHNOWICZ, A. (2007). The monarchy and the British nation, 1780 to the present. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. PANTON, K. J. (2011). Historical dictionary of the British monarchy. Lanham, Md, Scarecrow Press. Available at http://site.ebrary.com/id/10447158 BLAIN, N., & O'DONNELL, H. (2003). Media, monarchy and power. Bristol, Intellect. Read More