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
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?