Let me state very clearly this discussion is focused purely on the UK and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her monarchy.
When I was younger, I was a republican. I didn't like the idea that someone should be bestowed with great power and wealth purely because of the family they were born into. I felt that the UK royals were living the good life and giving nothing back to the people. Over time, I have changed my opinion, and this is why.
1) The monarchy has (probably) provided great stability.
The UK has probably been the most politically stable 'nation' in the last three hundred years. We have been without coup, civil war or revolution in that time.
Republicans say that we cannot prove this is due to the monarchy. Some also argue it is down to the advanced democracy of the UK, in other words there is something ""so special about us Brits.
My response is that if there is something 'special' about us, it obviously deserted our direct descendents who emigrated to the US and become caught up in the bloody civil war in America in the 1860s.
Whilst it cannot be proven our monarchy provided stability, circumstantial evidence suggests very strongly that it has. Whilst other nations have flirted with short lived republics punctured by civil war and bloodshed, we have come through peacefully and with a comparatively great deal of freedom and democratic choice.
2) It brings in money to the UK.
The monarchy costs something like sixty pence per year for every person in the UK. This is compared to something like one hundred pounds per person, per year for our membership to the corrupt EU. The queen and her institution pay rent for all the royal grounds in the UK and also generate a large amount of tourism. These funds more than cover the cost of the monarchy and generate funds for charities.
Overall, it is likely that the monarchy is highly beneficial in financial terms.
In any case, republics cost money, too.
3) It keeps politicians in check.
Who would you rather have as your head of state - George W Bush, Gordon "billions for Iraq" Brown or a woman who has an entire family legacy to protect and a wealth of political experience?
The Queen has more power than most western monarchs. She can declare war, cede our empire, appoint a PM of her own choosing and heads the Church of England. In practice she invests most of her powers in parliament but should one of the politicos attempt to become a dictator or despot, we have a safeguard in place to stop it happening.
4) It's not broken, so why fix it?
Our democracy has its faults, but compared to the rest of The World we are doing pretty well. The monarchy does no detectable harm and may well do a lot of good, so why risk any of this by changing it? What sort of republic would we change into? What would we do with the remaining empire? What would we do with the royal projects? The questions are endless.
The only real argument in favour of a republic is that it is more democratic and just. In theory this is true, but in practice it probably wouldn't be. As stated, the queen only has limited powers which exist as safeguards and are delegated to elected officials.
The only potential problem could be if an heir to the throne gave major cause for concern, such as insanity. For the time being, we seem safe. Prince Charles is not overly popular but is accepted, his two sons - the elder in particular - are very popular.
The British monarchy is now a unique institution in western culture. It could not have been designed, it has become this way through decades, indeed centuries of evolution and adaption. It now stands as an icon which not only helps us feel some identity in a country whose culture and way of life is rapidly changing and perhaps disappearing, but is also a highly functional constitutional check and balance.
As for the union itself though, that's something I am far less keen on. I may write about that in future.
(In this article I have borrowed heavily from Dr Sean Gabb. www.seangabb.co.uk)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment