RSS
Democracy and the Monarchy
Posted by Adam White (@theday2day)
Thursday, 18th February 2010
In the light of the Twitter debate, and the House of Twits vote, I ask, Is Britain a democracy?
This may seem like a very odd question, but upon closer consideration of our constitutional arrangement it doesn't seem that odd at all. Of course we are a form of democracy and within any system of government it is perfectly legitimate to debate the democratic credentials of that system, it should be expected. There is no doubt that we have democratic institutions, but just how democratic are these institutions and what impact does this have within the wider context of our democracy? It is my opinion, and indeed the opinion of many academics and commentators, that on first glance our system of government appears more democratic than it actually is in practice.
The most common target for such criticisms are obvious, unlike most western democracies, we have an unelected head of state in the form of the monarchy, which is decided solely by right of birth. We only elect 646 out of 1,386 of the members of our Parliament. And as if having an unelected head of state wasn't bad enough, the government of the day can bypass the entire democratic process, and do so in the name of the monarchy. The final point was sadly not uncommon during the Blair years, and was usually used in the most disgusting of situations.
It is my personal opinion, that the monarchy embodies some of the worst characteristics of modern Britain. It is elitist, it is snobbish and it clings to outdated principles that, put simply, have no place in the 21st century, sometimes acting as barriers to positive change. A group of people, who by the nature of their upbringing and surroundings, feel superior and somehow blessed with wisdom, even though their existence could not be more removed from that of the average British citizen. People like Prince Charles seem to think he deserves input into the process of Government, purely because of his title and the family he was born into, what is democratic about that?
Whenever the debate on Britain's constitution arises I find myself repeating the same question, what is the point of the monarchy? Most Monarchists seem to suggest that it is a cherished link to our history, our culture and our very identity as a nation. Is this the identity we really want to present to the world? If we want to talk history I don't see anything positive in the role played by the monarchy in Britain's history. When I think of monarchy I think of dictatorial rule. I think of Charles and his attempts to undermine the development of representative government. I think of the beheading, the hangings and the burning carried out at the behest of the monarchy against those who disagreed with them, which they believed was their god given right. To say the monarchy is what makes Britain great is insulting, not just to my beliefs but to those who truly make Britain a better place. The teachers, the nurses, charity workers, surely these people are what make Britain great? If anyone wishes to argue that the Queen does plenty of good through charities etc. then I ask you this, could she not continue such virtuous acts without her title and taxpayer subsidised palaces?
Monarchists will often try and argue that the argument is irrelevant, that the monarch retains no real power, which in reality isn't exactly true. Even so, if this was the case then why defend it? What would be the point of maintaining something that has no real impact or significance in the modern world? Is tradition a significant justification for continuing to give millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to one of the largest landowners in the country every year? Is tradition a good enough reason for leaving them exempt from freedom of information and auditing legislation?
I suppose I should register some bias at this point. By my very nature I have always had problems with authority. I don't like unconditional respect or deference, respect is something to be earned. The idea that if (god forbid) I was to find myself standing in front of Her Majesty, I should have to bow and address as her in a manner that implies some element of superiority, really infuriates me. We should all be considered as equals, what has Elizabeth Windsor ever done to deserve my unconditional respect and admiration? What gives her the right to a lifetime of institutionalised privilege whilst millions still live in poverty? The answer to me is clear.
As part of the upper class, the Royal Family has historically served a pretty narrow set of objectives, mainly to perpetuate its own existence. I am not implying that this is solely through some selfish desire to preserve their own status, I think they genuinely believe they serve a positive role in society, after all that is what they have been raised to believe and lets face it, who is ever going to have told them otherwise?
But lets come back to the implications for democracy which are raised by this discussion. The Queen, as head of state is not the head of government, her powers are limited and largely ceremonial, so what is the problem? There is one very important power the Queen does retain, and come May we might just see it in action.
In the likelihood of an hung Parliament come May, "There is a lot of talk of the Queen having to play an active role", as one Palace insider recently told the Guardian. For me this is where serious questions need to be asked. Although there are loose conventions for the role of the monarch in the event of a hung Parliament, due to the lack of a written constitution this process is far from clear and cannot be clarified independently by any constitutional court. Should the power to decide who forms a government be vested in someone who is unelected and totally unaccountable?
For example, it has been suggested that even if the Tories won the election, but couldn't form a stable majority then Brown would be able to remain as Prime Minister, the guiding principle being that incumbency is preferable in the interest of stability. Now as a member of the Labour Party I would be delighted in ensuring that David Cameron never becomes Prime Minister, but as a Democrat, I would shudder at the thought of someone being kept out of No. 10 after winning the popular vote, especially if this was at the whim of Her Majesty and a set of fairly ambiguous conventions draughted by Civil Servants. Surely such an important role would be better off in the hands of someone who is elected and accountable to the people whom it affects?
At a time when confidence in Parliament is so low, serious considerations need to be made as to how we can reform government, in doing so making the democratic process more relevant, more accessible and more representative of the British people. We need a set of rules that leave no uncertainty about the roles played by the various components involved, which serves to uphold the democratic principles we hold dear. For me the solution is clear, a fully democratic Republic with a written constitution that subjects all aspect of power to the will of the people. Its about time we bought Britain into the 21st century, instead of clinging stubbornly to what once was.
