Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Monarchy, abolition of
Section B. Constitutional/governance
Britain is one of the oldest surviving hereditary monarchies. Several other European countries are monarchies (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Spain) along with other countries around the world such as Morocco and Lesotho in Africa and Bhutan in Asia. Arab sheikhs and the Japanese emperor are also examples of hereditary rulers. Historically, a partially elected parliament was seen as a mechanism to check the power of the monarch. As centuries passed, more and more real power passed to parliaments and away from monarchs, in some cases through violent revolution (as in France and Russia). In other cases, such as Britain or the Netherlands, the process was more gradual and the monarch has simply been left with only ceremonial duties and nominal powers. Is there any point in maintaining this institution or is an elected president the only appropriate head of state in the modern world? The arguments below use examples from the British monarchy, but can be replaced with details of the particular monarch or with multiple examples if necessary.
Pros
[1] It is thoroughly anti-democratic to have a head of state whose position is decided on birth rights. The people of a country should choose their head of state through an election. Just as important is the lack of accountability in birth rights. Unlike the case of a head of state who can be voted out, a monarch cannot be. Inherited power is an out-of-date idea that has no place in the twenty-first century with its meritocratic and anti-elitist ideals.
[2] An hereditary monarch will always be from the same race and class. This harms representation and tells members of minorities and the working classes that however hard they work, nobody from their background will be the head of state. This harms inclusivity and aspiration. In contrast, the election of a black US president, Barack Obama, is inspirational for minorities.
[3] The monarchy can appear to be embarrassing and out of touch with society. Their cosseted upbringing means they have little in common with those they lead. With the British monarchy, Prince Philip’s racist remarks and Prince Harry’s nude photos and Nazi fancy-dress costumes are examples of behaviour that the public would rather not have associated with the country.
[4] The monarchy is hugely expensive. The taxpayer is funding lavish lifestyles in palaces with banquets and overseas travel. In 2011/12, the Queen’s official expenditure totalled £32.3 million. Spending on royal residences and other buildings totalled £12.2 million. The campaign group Republic have claimed that taxpayers are spending five times more on each member of the Royal Family than on a frontline soldier in Afghanistan.
[5] Constitutionally, in the UK, the monarch is both pointless and dangerous at the same time — the worst mix. The convention that the monarch would never interfere in legislative matters means that there is an important check missing on the prime minister’s power. On the other hand, if the monarch were to use their veto, it would be an outrageous abuse of an unelected power.
[6] The monarchy serves as a reminder of our imperialist and elitist past. We should cast off these shackles and embrace modernity. It would send a powerful message to the descendants of all those oppressed and slaughtered in the name of the crown to dispense with this tainted institution.
Cons
[1] The monarch has no real power, so is not needed to allow the day-to-day running of a modern democracy. The role is ceremonial and in this role their independence is an advantage. An elected head of state may feel justified to wield power or to interfere with the government and this would be undesirable. The media does a good job of holding the monarchy to account, and changes such as the Queen paying taxes show that she does listen and respond to criticism.
[2] Electing a head of state brings no guarantee of representation. Britain has only ever had white prime ministers. In the US, in recent decades, one sees power concentrated in political dynasties such as the Kennedy, the Bush and the Clinton families.
[3] The monarchy is a symbol of a nation and something to be proud of. It is a rallying point for the nation in times of both trouble and celebration. It offers a positive image of the country abroad. Royal family members are no more out of touch or embarrassing than politicians. In Britain, the younger members are positive role models. All members of the royal family get out into the community and do large amounts of charity work, more so than politicians. Many of them serve in the armed forces.
[4] The monarchy raises money through attracting tourism revenue to the country. It also raises money for charity, pays tax and advances British business interests abroad. Historic buildings would have to be maintained even if the monarchy were abolished.
[5] The system of a constitutional monarch offers the perfect balance; they do not interfere with the sovereignty of parliament, but there is an ultimate check there if it were needed in extreme circumstances. Other heads of state would expect more power and this would weaken parliament.
[6] The Queen is the head of state of many Commonwealth nations and is a unifying figurehead. The monarch is part of the traditions and culture of a country and that heritage should be celebrated.
Possible motions
This House would elect its head of state.
This House would abolish the monarchy.
Related topics
Democracy
House of Lords, elected v. appointed
Disestablishment of the Church of England