The Role of the Monarchy in the UK - Assignment Example

Swarna1 Word count 3059 P.Swarnalatha ID # 5448 Order #190203 d 14th November 2007 What is the role of the monarchy in the UK and how has it adjusted to secure its position? How convincing are the arguments for its replacement by an elected head of the state. Monarchy is a system in which the head of the state is inherited but not elected (David Starkey, 2004). United Kingdom has been following this system of governance for several centuries. No doubt, the UK is ruled, at least ceremonially, by a monarch. There are different views on monarchy in UK. The Royal family is interpreted as a purely symbolic state decoration by some or as being completely irrelevant by others. If one looks in to the history of monarchy in UK, it was actually overthrown during the English revolution in 1649, when parliament passed a resolution which abolished the House of Lords, confiscated crown, church and royalist land, and set up a commission to try the king. In 1660, however, the monarchy was restored with Charles II and has retained an important constitutional role ever since. Since then, it continues till date and debate goes on time to time regarding its relevance. The monarchy symbolizes conservative values and the status quo (David Starkey, 2006). The monarch dissolves parliament, appoints and dismisses prime ministers, assents to legislation, signs treaties, declares war and appoints judges through the prime minister. Using this prerogative, a British prime minister can declare war without a debate in parliament. This implies that democracy can go well in integration with the monarchy in UK. The history reveals that monarchy has brought remarkable positive changes in the society of UK. This is made possible because of necessary transformations or changes in the form of reforms and hence the need for change from monarchy to republic was not felt in higher intensity. Even though monarchy still commands respect from significant sections of the population, the percentage of supporters has been on declining trend. In 1990, 75% of Britain population favored a monarch, which fell down to 44 % in 2000 and 34 % in 2001. There are some views, which support the shifting the governance from monarchy to republic. Republicanism in the United Kingdom is a movement in the United Kingdom which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary Head of state (Reginald Stanley Birch, 2004). This certainly opens a debate over relevance of monarchy at present. First let us analyze the negative points of monarchy. There is a clear cut gap in the governing style of monarchy and peoples aspirations in the modern age and hence the intelligentsia attacks the monarchy with a pincer movement (Theodore Dalrymple, 2002). Monarchy devalues intellect and achievement and hence is not liked by several intelligentia. Republicans argue that Royals bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Moreover, a modern democratic process has no need for a monarchy. An elected president should be the way forward, so anyone can aspire to be head of state rather than it being retained for a single family. The same laws on tax should be applied to every UK citizen. They should have the same rights and privileges that every UK citizen enjoys. Hereditary monarchy is also interpreted to be racially discriminatory as the monarchs themselves can only represent a single race by virtue of being from the same family. It also devalues the parliamentary system. Several people want reforms in monarchy in UK instead of its abolishment. Mori polls suggest that 70% of the British people prefer a monarchy to a republic although nearly the same proportion wants it modernised. (Financial Times, 7 February 2002). The continental model is put forward, where the royal family would have a much reduced income and property, and a purely ceremonial role. Reform of the British state is long overdue. The monarchy must be abolished, along with that other feudal bastion of privilege, the House of Lords. There is strong necessity of the socialist revolution to put an end to monarchy and then only society would be able to look forward to a future based on human solidarity. The vast majority of working-class people would be involved in planning and running the economy. Republicans argue that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their Head of State and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that public office, and that such a Head of State is more accountable to the people. The right to choose ones leaders is the sine qua non of a democracy. Monarchy may be viewed as the enemy of merit and aspiration. The order of succession in a monarchy dictates that only a few people have the capability of being the Head of State. This is anathema to meritocracy, and promotes aristocracy. The vast majority of common people, not being members of the aristocracy, are discouraged. The highest office in the land is not open to free and fair competition. The huge expenditure involved for maintenance of monarchy is its biggest flaw. It was reported that the royal household cost Britains taxpayers around £35 million in 2001, including £6.5 million for the Queens expenses (Socialism Today, 2002). At the same time, the monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability. It is also argued that Monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. While monarchists tend to feel that an impartial advantage is gained by various aspects of the civil service reporting into the Crown, republicans see a lack of important democratic accountability and transparency for such institutions. It is also felt that a republic is the next logical step of a historical process of gradual democratic reform. No doubt, the British people will excel within a non-hereditary democratic and open system for selecting the head of the executive branch of government as well as the head of state. The new office of President would represent a new political culture - social inclusiveness would replace social hierarchy, mutual respect would replace deference, genuine intellect would replace the spurious wisdom of princes. Every child growing up in a British republic, from whatever background, would know from an early age that they too could aspire one day to becoming Head of State themselves. Republicans argue that the people, should be sovereign, not the offspring of one family retained at public expense to occupy the top job in a state system, permanently. The hereditary monarchy is the ultimate symbol of unfairness and elitism. In a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. Such a system does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a modern nation. Maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens. It is also argued that monarchy is religiously discriminatory. If the Monarch is the Head of the Church of England, that implies that all other religions are officially considered false by the Head of State. Only a Protestant may inherit the Crown, and anyone who has professed Roman Catholicism, or has married a Roman Catholic, is prohibited from succeeding. It is argued by Republicans that the very way citizens are supposedly required to address a royal family, even the most junior members, is part of an attempt to keep subjects in their place. Overall, choosing people for responsible jobs like head of state by accident of birth is undemocratic especially in a modern "classless society" where everyone must have equal opportunity (Observer, 2000). Now let us analyze the positive views about monarchy The monarchy represents history and culture of UK. The fact that UK having a living monarch is a sign of the transition from absolute monarchy to particular brand of democracy, unlike the bloody revolutions in Europe or the failure of monarchs such as Kaiser Wilhelm who disappeared after their failure in intervening in their state politics. As for the Queen being head of the Church of England, well just remember how the church was formed-as a result of the disagreement with the Church of Rome - just one of many ludicrous attempts at unifying Europe under non-democratic authoritarian rule. UK must retain monarchy in order to maintain its identity and as a show of autonomy for any nation in the world in danger of being engulfed by other such ideologies. Moreover, the monarchy has served UK, including the colonies, pretty well. Looking at the worlds republics one can see little or no advantage in that alternative. As United Kingdom has combination of monarchy with prime minister it facilittes separation from government duties which has some advantages. Monarchy also offers a bridge to non-governmental organizations. Monarch is able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc. It is difficult to prove that the support of the Monarchy is politically impartial, but it is easily documented that monarchs have supported charitable causes and NGOs - although given their already high profile and lack of need to earn real money this is not necessarily something that should be particularly appluaded nor unusual. Another legal example could be the role of the Police in the UK, where the Police are occupy of the Office of Constable that are there to protect the Queens Peace. As a result, it effectively means they are servants of the Crown and not servants of the government. This allows them to be completely impartial of the government, thus separating the administration of justice from the government. Monarchy is not that cost incurring process as republicans argue if one compares with the quality of services provided by them. The annual expenditure, since June 2005 has been a total of £36.7 Million or approximately 61 pence per person. When compared to the relative size and the duties that the Royal Family perform, this is significantly more cost effective as their only job duties are the meeting of foreign dignitaries, attending events and ceremonial events, to which they devote the majority of their time. Monarchy also provides a focal point for unity and tradition as it focuses on national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president, who, due to the election process, would cause a relative amount of division between his or her supporters and detractors. Monarchy certainly provides an impartial arbiter as it facilitates symbolic Head of State which is a step removed from political, commercial, and factional interests, allowing them to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between various levels of government and political parties, an especially indispensable feature in a federal system. The fact that this body holds all executive authority is seen as a bonus by monarchists, who state that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain. The monarchy is of fundamental importance to the structure of the state - the legal system and armed forces are underpinned by the monarch, which has no political allegiance and is a constant institution amongst those which are continually changing. Whatever one may think of the people that form it, the institution itself is a great benefit to not only the UK but also many countries around the world whose structure of state, legal system and armed forces are formed around the same stable and reliable institution. the expenditure spent on monarchy is not as high as a Republic. UK has a Prime Minister who holds much greater powers than the Royals and each year the elected parliament wastes more money than the Royals would receive in the next 20years, which by the way is minuscule compared to the taxes collected. On 1 January 2005, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force. As from that date, any person of any nationality can make a request to see information held by public bodies, except where special exemptions apply. This reflects that people are very convenient in accessing any information even in the present system of monarchy. Monarchy also develops better international relations especially with the monarchs of other nations, or in the case of the Commonwealth Realms, one person is the Head of State separately for each nation. Monarchies have more stability in governance. It is felt that Constitutional Monarchy creates a Head of State that is under the democratic control of Parliament but does not rotate and change on a short term basis. It provides advantage over the days of absolute monarchies when there were certainly tumultuous periods with multiple monarchs. Monarchy also discourages divisive elections which help in higher stability of government in UK. It is opined that where elections are not needed and they are only divisive, then the head of state need not be elected. This also reduces public expenditure to a greater extent. Can republic exactly gives the solution ? The recent reforms in constitution of United Kingdom certainly favor the republic principles (Andrew Gamble, 2006). The introduction of right to information act (2005) is one of the important landmarks in this regard. It supports the view that monarchy is better than Republic provided necessary reforms would be introduced from time to time. Her Majesty has personally reformed the monarchy in the best possible way and hence the complete abolishment of monarchy has no meaning here. Ancient British institutions have always reformed to survive, and the monarchy is no exception. There are too many indefensible aspects of the current arrangements. Without change these will lead to public disaffection whenever the popularity of the individual royals declines - as we saw during the Diana years. The monarchical reform programme seeks to reduce the number of members of the royal family on the Civil List, paid for by taxpayers. It looks to renegotiate the amount of tax paid by the royal family, and the anomalous planning and other laws attaching to Crown property. It proposes the repeal of the rules giving males precedence over females and which disbar Catholics. Many of these reforms are already being canvassed by the Palace. The need for reforms in monarchy in UK has been supported by several people (Chris Summers, 2004). It is heartening to note that some constitutional reforms undertaken in UK supported the gradual reforms which inculcated more republican elements with out abolishing monarchy. It seeks to redefine the job of Head of State of the United Kingdom. At present the British monarch combines the ceremonial functions common in other European countries with a set of extremely unusual political powers and duties: to dissolve Parliament, appoint and dismiss the prime minister, assent to legislation, to sign treaties, declare war and appoint judges. Most of these powers are exercised under Royal Prerogative by the prime minister, but this is in itself an extraordinary constitutional structure. It gives the prime minister huge powers, not only of patronage, but to declare war - without reference to Parliament. A written constitution, guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms, would make the British people citizens, not subjects. Allegiance to the constitution would then replace the Oath of Allegiance in Parliament. The Queens Speech would be replaced by the Governments Programme, announced in the Commons not the Lords. The speaker of the House of Commons would adjudicate in the event of unclear general election results and assent formally to legislation. Prerogative powers would pass to ministers and cross-party committees in Parliament. The purpose of the republican reform of the monarchy is therefore the proper democratisation of the British constitution. Some British Citizens interpreted that the monarchy may be considered an embarrassment, as a concept it is dated and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it can not claim to be a modern nation. However, the opinion poll conducted during some major events as the Queens Golden Jubilee and the funeral of the Queen Mother, the majority of the British public supported the monarchy. The countries like Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Japan, are also ruled by monarchs, and they have peaked in economic deveopment and have become modern which clearly reflects that monarchy would not retard the modern nature of UK. Hence the monarchical spirit has to be supported. Moreover, the appearance of the monarchy should be reformed to ensure that its powers survive unchanged. (Michael Jacobs, 2002). At the same time, some elements of republican spirit can be encouraged. Royal functions should be reformed to give Britain a fully democratic constitution, but without the immense historical rupture that would be involved in the full-scale abolition of the monarchy. Conclusion UK needs the monarchy but with strong reforms. Several reforms have been made in the past facilitating more republican elements. The need of the hour is to further reform the monarchy to accommodate more republican principles so that the results of the democracy would reach the common man in UK. The expenditure of Royal family should be reduced and the accountability of Prime Minister should be increased. The monarchical and republican modernization programmes are highly integrated with each other and the first could lead to the second in a series of gradual steps. References Andrew Gamble, 2006. The constitutional revolution in the United Kingdom Publius. January, 2006. Chris Summers. 2004. Monarchy remains political taboo. Dated 28 december, 2004. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3701086.stm David Starkey, 2004.The Monarchy of England Volume 1: The Beginnings P:208. Chatto and Windus publication ISBN-10: 0701176784 David Starkey, 2006. Monarchy: From the Middle Ages to Modernity. HarperPress publication. P: 319. ISBN-10: 0007247508 Introducingthefreedomofinforationacts.2005.http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3622.asp#1. Michael Jacobs. 2002. Reform, yes. But go slowly. BBC News Online: UK. Friday, 26 April, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1953038.stm. Observer. 2000. Time for the monarchy to move aside" July 30 2000. http://www.observer.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,348627,00.html Reginald Stanley Birch, 2004. The republic of England, New political system. September 8 2004. http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=14820. Socialism Today. 2002. Monarchy in the UK. Issue 66, Dated June, 2006. http:www// socialismtody.org/66/monarchy.html.   Theodore Dalrymple "The Peoples Queen: But not the intelligentsias. Who will win? - intelligentsias opposition to British monarchy". National Review. July 1, 2002. Read More