She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it.
We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter.
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
And yet there is a growing chorus of voices in the USA complaining - with some justification - that the country is run by an elite for the exclusive benefit of that elite. The fairness aspects you talk about are, at this stage in the evolution of Western democracy, largely nominal.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
Comments
She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it.
I encourage you to look here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/To... where you can see exactly what they all get up to.
Not a job she can get fired from, was hired to do, or is held accountable for etc...
We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
[edit: grammar]
Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
Hear hear. Good show, my Commonwealth sibling.
Nor one she chose, or can choose to leave
EDIT: yes she can choose to abdicate, but not exactly as easily and free from consequence as anyone else could quit their job.
Surely we should abolish such a job! It's practically slavery to condemn an entire family to live a specific way.
I'm pretty sure she can abdicate if she feels like it.
Fun to think about!
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
And yet there is a growing chorus of voices in the USA complaining - with some justification - that the country is run by an elite for the exclusive benefit of that elite. The fairness aspects you talk about are, at this stage in the evolution of Western democracy, largely nominal.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
What is the evidence that elections select for merit?
What is the evidence that they don't?
Why is any of that important when it comes to a parliamentary system where the head of state is not the head of government?
"Not a job she can get fired from"
That's what Charles I thought......
Yes, way back in 1649. Are there any modern precedents, in any monarchy?
The Russian revolution is a much more recent example I think.
More recently than that, didn't a bunch of princely states end their royalties with the creation of India?