Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy
- Provides an impartial arbiter
Monarchists argue that an impartial, symbolic Head of State 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 analogy monarchists use is that the Crown is like a
fire extinguisher: rarely used, but highly visible and there in case of emergencies. As Earl Russell put it in
The Spectator in 1997: "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing."
Or, as Sir Michael Forsyth said in 1999: "The monarchy's most important constitutional function is simply to be there: by occupying the constitutional high ground, it denies access to more sinister forces; to a partisan or corrupt president, divisive of the nation; or even to a dictator. The Queen's powers are a vital safeguard of democracy and liberty." This view of the monarchy could have developed after Oliver Cromwell's Republic which eventually became a military dictatorship, there has been little desire to attempt a republic since. Furthermore, monarchists assert that honours systems like the
French Legion of Honour may not be as politically impartial as they feel that a monarch is.
- Provides a focal point for unity and tradition
Monarchists argue that a
constitutional monarch with limited powers, and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for 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. However, the
French Legion of Honour provides a clear example of an honours system directed by an elected head of state.
- Provides links with other states
Monarchs tend to be linked 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.
The Queen is, by notoriety, the Head of the
Church of England and plays quite an active part within this role. The days are gone when
Catholics, or followers of non-Christian religions, would be pursected by The Crown as traitors and heretics.
- A separation from government duties (in figurehead monarchies)
Monarchists argue that separating the Head of State from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), offers some advantages. But it is unclear if a system like that of
France, wherein there is a separate president and prime minister would have the same advantage, it being possible that having both an elected president and prime minister could lead to the two coming to odds over who holds more authority; each could claim to be "elected by the people".
Politicians with a noted
left-wing stance on government such as
Tony Benn have at least proposed (albeit derogatorily) ways in which a government could exist without lesser aristocrats, but Monarchists have nevertheless pointed out that whilst the Queen (in the eyes of Republicans) does very little politically, the
House of Lords plays a very significant part in passing new laws, and that it could not exist as a constitution without the Monarchy. There is also, even if Republicans do raise the issue as to whether the needs of
the people are addressed or understood by the Royal Family, the question of how much more astute politians are on that level.
- Monarchies have staying power
Monarchists argue 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. In the days of absolute monarchies however, there were certainly tumultuous periods with multiple monarchs. Perhaps the examples of
Edward VI,
Lady Jane Grey, and
Queen Mary I would serve as an example of 3 monarchs in 11 years. However, modern Constitutional Monarchs, such as that in Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have had monarchs that have had many Prime Ministers, but only one Monarch during a 50 year span.
Republicans have argued that the existence of a monarchy or even an aristocracy amounts to snobbery and that one should not be placed in power purely because of inheritence, or how "properly" one speaks. However, a Monarchist might counter that the loss of a monarchy would do nothing to diminish discrimination,
and point towards the presidency of George W. Bush in the United States or even Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan partly if not purely on the grounds that their fathers were noted politicians before them as testimony to the fact that a person can and will be placed in power on unfair grounds with or without the presence of a crown. Even the aftermath of the Cromwellian republic saw Cromwell's son being offered the position of Lord Protector after his father's death, before Charles II returned as King.
Constitutional Monarchists argue that where elections are not needed they are only divisive, and that the head of state need not be elected. This relates to the first argument that they are impartial and are figures of unity that people from all sides of the political spectrum can unite behind.
The Royals in the United Kingdom have documented an extensive lists of duties and functions that they carry out.
[12]
- The Royals are cost effective
The annual expenditure, since June 2005 has been a total of £36.7 Million
[13] 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 all of their time. In most states with a presidential system , the duties are divided between political and ceremonial responsibilities resulting in less time for both.
wikipedia.org
The fact is that Britain - along with other constitutional monarchies such as Spain, Holland, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium - has the best system of government in the world today.
Even Japan, the most technologically advanced nation in the world, is a constitutional monarchy.
