11 Jul 2010
The other day a supporter emailed me suggesting that ‘party’ politicians should be excluded from presidential elections. It’s not the first time people have suggested various criteria by which we can limit the pool of candidates for the post, and it’s something that I think takes us to the heart of the principled debate about democratic practices.
For me there could be many criteria against which I might judge candidates. You may have different criteria of your own. The question is whether the state should set these benchmarks for all of us, or whether we should each make our own decision when it comes to casting a ballot.
David suggested that politicians who have been elected to parliament on a party ticket cannot be impartial and so cannot serve in an impartial role as head of state. Others have suggested there should be an age limit of 35 or 40, some have (rather oddly in my view) suggested qualifications should be required, perhaps a degree or doctorate.
The idea, I guess, is to ensure we have a good president each and every time, someone with the intelligence, good character and experience to do the job well. But I think this misses the point: that judgement about someone’s character and suitability should be made on a case by case basis by the electorate, not by arbitrary rules determined by the state or the constitution. None of the criteria I’ve heard are universal, a party politician is quite capable of being a good and impartial figurehead, someone younger than 35 may well prove an excellent leader, a person who has never been to university may have the life experiences that make her a first rate president. So let’s let the people decide.
On the question of impartiality it’s worth defining what we mean: it is the office of head of state that must be impartial, but that office is a constitutional one, not a political one. That means the president wouldn’t be making policy decisions, like a minister, but would (occasionally) be making judgements about what action to take under the constitution, perhaps like a judge or the Speaker of the Commons.
So what’s required is neutrality when making those decisions, accountability for those decisions in case they are questionable, and a general reticence from the president against speaking out on contentious or party-political issues. This last point is not so we believe, as some do with the Queen, that the president is devoid of thought or political opinion, but simply to avoid a clash between the office of president and the government of the day. Knowing, as we would for most candidates, what the president believes politically in a general sense is not a problem, so long as they understand and respect their constitutional role.
As with monarchy, we can never guarantee every head of state will be a success, unlike the monarchy if a president fails in their duty they can be removed, either by impeachment or at the next election. So there is no need to invent criteria to try and second guess who will make a great head of state, we simply need to let the people decide, ensuring that if we make the wrong decision mechanisms are in place to allow us to correct it and try again.
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 11th, 2010 at 8:02 am and is filed under A future republic, Case for a republic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 11th, 2010 at 8:50 am
i understand where this is coming from, but dont completely agree. i think a president has to act as a bit of a safety valve on government activity to allow unreasonable govt activity to be blocked, like the queen is in theory, but not in practice.
to do this i think that the president needs act as an advocate for the public, for example by having the power to call a referendum on activity that they believe the public will not support. in such a scenario, a president that has come directly from party politics is too likely to take a partisan stance, so why not bar anyone who has been a party member in the last 5 years to allow them to ‘cool down’ before taking office?
July 11th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Ideally it would be parliament that acts as the peoples’ advocate, that’s what they’re there for. Reform of parliament would be required of course, and a republican constitution ought to include a limiting of the powers of the executive (and the legislature) so that the peoples’ rights are protected and their views can be properly represented.
The president is essentially a constitutional arbiter, making constitutional issues, such as insisting on a referendum if an Act of parliament is in contravention of the constitution, but not being able to insist on one just because he thinks it would be a good idea.
To allow the president to make political choices about such things would provoke serious clashes between president and parliament and would potentially undermine the ability of parliament to represent the people themselves.
Some people think we ought to have a politicised head of state, but I think it is problematic and unnecessary, and there is a job to be done for a constitutional head of state.
July 11th, 2010 at 10:44 am
i think the problem that i have with your interpretation of a president’s role is that it is not sufficiently pragmatic.
whilst it might be ideal for a president to be just a constitutional arbiter you will never be able to create an abolutely watertight constitution, and there will always be occasions where a govt will have enough power to act against the interests of the public.
for example, consider the poll tax. it is unlikely that the govt would breach a constitution with this, but it had overwhelming public opposition and was only possible because the govt had too much power and the public had no way to intervene.
even with coalitions we can see that massively unpopular policies can be bulldozed through so having a safety valve is vital.
im not proposing that the president can overrule a govt, just that they could allow the public to intervene. this isnt really a political choice, just one of recognising when overwhelming public opposition exists and allowing the public to have the final decision.
im not convinced that clashes between the president and govt are a bad thing either – if theyre elected then they have as much of a mandate as any parliamentarian.
i dont think this undermines parliament’s ability to represent people, just makes proper representation more likely and provides a mechanism to resolve problems when they (inevitably) occur.
essentially, we’re never going to be able to create an absolutely perfect political system so mechanisms need to be in place to try to deal with that. consequently, the relative detachment of the president from party politics would be a desirable asset.
July 11th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Neil, those are matters for parliament, which ought to be strong enough to act as a check against the executive when required, particularly in the upper house. There’s no need for the president to get involved. The trouble with politicising the office of president is that it can then no longer be a constitutional role at all.
Ultimately if the elected politicians do something that is unpopular then it is for the voters to judge them at the following election.
It would be a very political decision for the president to intervene on policy matters, regardless of opinion polling or demonstrations of opposition.
What’s pragmatic is accepting that politics is politics, and often politicians will do things that aren’t hugely popular. If the constitution is rigorous enough then there will be opportunities for the peoples’ representatives, and then the people themselves, to act as a check against such moves. But I don’t think the president should be such a check unless stopping actions which contravene the constitution.
July 11th, 2010 at 11:05 am
im not sure that i see the point of electing someone if they arent going to represent you and this seems to be what youre proposing.
surely the decision of whether actions are unconstitutional is a legal one that is dealt with by judges and, ultimately, the supreme court. if this is the only role of the president then why not just appoint a well qualified lawyer/judge (just to be absolutely clear, i really dont agree with this)
July 11th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Being a monarch is probably the least qualified and scrutinised of any job.
You don’t need academic or vocational qualifications, you don’t need any formal training, you don’t need a CRB check or a curriculum vitae, you don’t need any personality tests and you don’t need to supply references.
You don’t even have to apply for the job!
I’ve thought very hard and looked briefly at several job advertisements – from merchant banker, to managing director, to toilet attendant, to gardener, to teacher, etc. – and they all require some applicable modicum of qualification.
With regards the role of a president (and the more I think about it, the more I think that it would be useful for such a person to have a broad knowledge of subjects such the Constitution and foreign policy), I am still of the mind that the role must have an executive duty to protect the Constitution and to “guard the guards” of the lower House.
If we give this role to political parties, that would vest too much power to the party(/ies) in power.
Therefore, an Upper House (“the Senate”) should be composed of people who are elected OUTSIDE the party political system.
This is why I suggested some time ago that we should have one vote for the House of Commons and one vote for the Senate who acn either elect a President on our behalf or directly by the electorate (based on nominations put forward by the Senate, perhaps).
As soon as you introduce choice, you introduce differentiators and qualifications would certainly be a differentiator.
July 11th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Neil, there’s a difference between a judicial and a constitutional decision, and yes, it could be done by appointing the head of state, but I don’t think that’s as good as electing her.
As in Ireland the president can still represent us as an ambassador and can still speak out on certain issues. But that’s different from having a distinct political role where the president can intervene in policy decisions of government. You can do that, but it would require a clear distinction between head of state and head of government – such roles do exist in places like France and Poland.
My starting point is that we should govern ourselves, and the best way to do that is through a parliamentary democracy. Parliament should be the key and central body, with the government drawn from that and accountable to it.
In setting that up we limit the powers of both parliament and government by writing a constitution. The president can then act as a check on that system, raising objections to any actions that she may deem unconstitutional and also helping to arbitrate where parliament can’t come to a decision, whether on policy, dissolution of parliament or the formation of a government.
The courts are final arbiter on constitutional issues, ruling on a presidential challenge to an act of parliament or ruling on a citizen-led legal challenge to an act of parliament.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Surely any debate about criteria for the role of president can only follow a decision about the nature of the post.
Will we eventually adopt the ‘Executive Presidential’ model of the US, or the ‘Ceremonial’ model of Ireland?
As the move to become a republic will be one of the most important and hotly debated decisions this country will ever make, then I’m sure there will be arguments for both options.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Quite right Stuart, and I have written this post on the assumption that we’ll have an Irish model republic. That’s an assumption based on general popularity of the models and the likelihood of adapting our current system rather than completely dumping it and replacing it with something completely new. It’s also Republic’s (and my) preferred model.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
stuart & graham, i completely agree with this too. if i had to choose i would also go for the irish model, but don’t think we necessarily have to be limited to the 2 options mentioned. i think we can tweak our current system to produce something that is more representative and successful than either of those 2 options.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Neil, I completely agree we can improve on that model, but we don’t need to expect the president to be the sole focus of improving the system. In terms of representation more is better than one, one president can never truly ‘represent’ us as ‘we’ are so diverse. That’s why I think improving parliament along republican and democratic lines while giving the president a limited constitutional role is the way to go. The president can represent us in the literal sense of being an ambassador, but parliament should do the job in the broader political sense.
July 11th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
graham, i think i agree with a lot of your principles
parliament desperately needs improving along republican and democractic lines – personally i would prefer to see:
(1) a separation of the commons (who should provide political direction) and the govt (who should manage implementation)
(2) the 2nd house (currently the lords) to become elected on the basis of a wide variety of expertise and experience so that they are capable of doing the job theyre currently supposed to do.
your absolutely right that
but the logical conclusion of this is surely that only ‘we’ can truly represent ‘us’. this is what i was trying to achieve by suggesting that the president should have the power to call a referendum.
on a day-to-day basis i would expect that the commons/lords/govt would run the show, but if things appear to be going off the rails the final arbiter should be us and the president’s role would merely be to enable this – absolute democracy when its needed
July 11th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Anyone can be allowed to run for the office, so long as they are interested, and don’t have a criminal record.
The presidency that is advocated here tends to be one of no power. So this office is open to the people.
In the end, only a few people will ever be elected president.
This was my view if England became a republic, it would be more like the original Irish presidency.
July 11th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I don’t really understand the need for any special Presidential powers.
Surely the combination of an elected Commons and Senate with an independent judiciary will be a sufficient combination of checks and balances?
(I would like to see parliamentary elections upgraded via proportional representation while retaining the personal accountability of the constituency system)
On reading Graham’s blog ‘Do we need a head of state?’, the sentence
“If parliament passed an Act that the president deemed unconstitutional she could refuse to give it final assent, sending it off to the constitutional court for judgement.”
rather jumped out at me.
What if the President DID deem it to be constitutional (even if it were not)? Would the courts then be bypassed?
The arbitration and umpiring on legal matters should be left to the judiciary while the President should be a ceremonial and symbolic figurehead.
July 11th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
David… to answer that specific point, no the courts wouldn’t be bypassed. Courts don’t instigate investigations and cases, they are there to be used by third parties. So if parliament passes an act which is unconstitutional it will pass nonetheless and will be enforceable, until a court decides otherwise.
The job of the president would be to try and ensure that doesn’t happen. She wouldn’t be able to simply say ‘no’, she could only judge for herself (with advice) that an act is unconstitutional and then ask a court to adjudicate. If the court finds in her favour the act falls, if not then the president is constitutionally bound to sign it into law.
This is along the lines of how it works in Ireland. It could make a big difference if, for example, parliament passed a draconian anti-civil liberties law. If it became law without challenge people could lose their freedom before anyone had a chance to challenge it in court. The president is a check on that possibility.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Surely then the system of passing laws should be changed to require all acts of parliament to undergo a judicial review before ending up on the Presidents desk to be signed into law?
This way a President elected on his or her popularly as the people’s representative wouldn’t have to be a constitutional lawyer.
Kelly Holmes or David Attenborough might be excellent Presidents in the ceremonial role, but would it be fair or even realistic to expect them to properly carry out “watchkeeper” duties?
July 11th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Well no, it would be entirely impractical to have courts adjudicate on every piece of legislation. Most legislation would just be signed off, and quite possibly if at the time of passing it’s not contentious unconstitutional laws could be signed off by the president.
The check is there to ensure that certain lines aren’t crossed. The president won’t be acting in isolation or on their own. They will have their own advisers and others will happily lobby the president before a decision needs to be made, to draw their attention to a problem.
It’s a constitutional role, not a technical or political role.
July 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
@ Graham
Perhaps if we had a Constitution, Parliament might be a little more discerning over the laws that it passes with regards to ensuring that each respective law fits with the Constitution at the outset.
In that way, laws could be validated against the Constitution as a matter of course rather than as a matter of exception.
All too often, we get knee-jerk reaction laws (e.g. gun laws, dangerous dogs, right to assembly, etc. etc) that are brought in without proper debate, scrutiny or general awareness.
Validating every law will go some way to prevent this malaise.
In addition, a Senate (or “House of Constitution”) comprised of representatives from non-political party bodies will give every voter the right to be represented in the Commons and the upper house, albit through different and quite separate structures.
July 13th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Sorry it’s taken me a long time to get involved in this debate – one which as most of you will know is very close to my heart – but my computer’s being repaired at the moment.
The most important thing I must say is that in considering the impartiality of the highest constitutional office and the person holding it, we must make sure we don’t fall into the monarchist trap of confusing impartiality with innocence.
Not sure what I even mean in a general sense, let alone how it applies to this particular topic? Well, ask just about any monarchist why they believe the monarchy to be of constitutional benefit, and they’ll reply that the Queen’s (apparently) non-political background means that she is able to act as impartial arbiter of the constitution during times of crisis. But the sheer folly of this assertion becomes plain for anyone to see when those same monarchists start harping on about how evil it is for the government to allow a situation to develop – a potential example they say being the failure of the coalition with the fixed-term parliament lock in place – in which there is a possibility that the Queen might be called upon to exercise her (democratically illegitimate) reserve powers, in their words getting “dragged into politics.” So one minute they’re saying the Queen is impartial because she has no political loyalties, but the next minute they’re saying she must never be called on to exercise that impartiality lest she lose her supposed political innocence.
But I’ve also seen republicans falling into this trap, arguing that the moment a constitutional head of state makes any binding constitutional decision on their own initiative, they lose their impartiality. This is not the case: nobody would argue that the referee in a league football match loses his ability to impartially judge the match the moment he gives a borderline decision one way or the other; his impartiality lies in the fact that he does not support either team, though it is of course true that if he is required to make a borderline decision then he can’t deny all responsibility for the outcome of the match – but that just goes with the job. In the same way, we want a president who is prepared to make decisions relating to the constitution despite their duties being primarily ceremonial, but who is able to make them without fear, favour or prejudice, and accept responsibility for them.
July 13th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Graham
Is James Gray no longer employed by Republic?
Regards Bruno
July 13th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Martin
It wouldn’t be practical or necessary to validate all laws against the constitution as they go through parliament. Of course during the process of making a law any such concerns may be raised, but others may disagree that a law is in contravention. So it’s necessary to allow parliament to make the laws it believes are appropriate and within the constitution and then for the president and courts to take up any cases where they believe parliament has over-stepped the mark.
A constitution shouldn’t bolt everything down and cover every possible contingency, it should essentially be there to provide the ‘rules of the game’ for our democracy and ensure our fundamental democratic rights aren’t infringed.
I doubt a constitution would prevent gun laws or dangerous dog laws (there’s no fundamental right to own either), although the right to assembly would be protected as it’s a basic right of a citizen in a democracy.
Free and fair elections will allow everyone to be represented (more or less) in the upper house. Any body of people which campaigns to get their members elected would, by definition, be a party. So having ‘non-political party’ bodies isn’t really possible. You can’t take the politics out of politics.
July 13th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Matthew
Good point. The impartiality of the monarch isn’t just a myth because she isn’t actually impartial, but because she is irrelevant to the political process for 99% of the time.
Bruno, that’s right.
July 13th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I’ve heard people say that this is a very important role and that we therefore need the best possible person in the role. Agreed, but there is another argument that I hear all the time and that is that it is a purely ceremonial role without any real powers and/or duties. If that is the case, then why should there be any qualification criteria? We could hold “X Factor” style auditions and ballots and let the winner be the head of state for a year.
Let’s face it, that’s no more stupid a way of picking a head of state than the one we have at the moment.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:03 am
What happened to James Gray??
What qualifies a president? – A president must almost always be a politician sadly. That is why i support our constitutional monarchy.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:40 am
A President does not have to be a politician. There are many people who could do the job, ex captains of industry to give just one example. It’s ironic that Simon holds politicians in contempt, (at least left-wing politicians), and never connects with why that may be so. I hope he is in favour of monarchs being politicians because coming down the succession’s line, unavoidably, is Charles the 5 personally-written-letters-a-day man, the fount of all knowledge, protected from FOI, he that must be agreed with and never questioned to his face. But hold on, Simon’s in favour of the succession skipping a generation isn’t he? Such a shame, he’s got no choice, highly ironic again.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Bob Wiggin,
Perhaps you could give me some examples of presidents in other countries who are not politicians? Ive been having a think, the only one ive come up with so far is the former President of Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf. He was not a politician, just a General who took control of the country in a military coup.
As for Prince Charles, i would have no problem with him as King. I have been honest with people hear i think the monarchy is in safer hands if William took over but we have to deal with the situation when it arises. I hope the Queen lives a couple more decades yet, so we do not have to think about these things. It is amazing to think that anyone under 60 has known nothing but Queen Elizabeth II on the throne. It will be hard to adjust, many of us worship our Queen but when the sad day does come, i am confident this country will still support the monarchy, even if it is weaker under our next monarch.
If Charles does do a very bad job, we can become a republic and abolish the monarchy. That is a risk us supporters of the monarchy must accept.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I have said that there are many people outside of politics who might have the attributes to be an elected President of a British Republic and given you an example. If you want another example then here’s one ; a retired medical professional. I did not say that there has never been a political president anywhere. Indeed everyone has political views including ceremonial presidents and your beloved Windsors, they are, (this might be news to you regarding the Windsors), only human after all. Unfortunately there are no constraints, other than conventions, on your beloved Windsors being able to wield their A-political influence at will, perhaps not always getting their way but wielding it nonetheless. It is their position that leads to their ‘influence’ carrying more weight than the likes of yours or mine. And what’s worse is that this wielding of influence is largely done behind closed doors and hidden from us. Now I know that you have no problem being servile to your beloved Windsors, although you would like Charles to step aside in favour of William, but I do have a problem. Why, for instance, is Charles personally writing five letters per day? Who is he writing them to? How many are to government ministers? What is the content? What is he asking for in these five letters per day? Is he just passing the time of day? If his letter writing is so inconsequential why has he been afforded blanket exemption from FOI?
“The sovereign has the right and duty to counsel warn and encourage her ministers” – That is taken from a house of commons document, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05377.pdf and is why I will always be a republican. Charles is just limbering up for the future.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I have said that there are many people outside of politics who might have the attributes to be an elected President of a British Republic it is your opinion of what attributes are worthy, others may not agree. I accept there are many good people out there in the world but that is not the point.
We are talking about who would become President and what qualifies them. I can think of people who may be worthy individuals but my choice may not be your choice. The one thing republican heads of states have in common is they usually always are politicians or involved in politics before becoming president.. Again if you can name some who arnt i would love to know?
As for your problem which you say is why you will always be a republican, what if that specific issue was addressed?
What if all communications between the Royal Family and ministers were actually banned and that no member of the senior royal family can do something that you may see as influencing certain matters. If you could be confident that all of that was completely prohibited, would you still be a republican?
I am betting you would be. There for why should we bother when you will never be happy until absolute abolition of the monarchy? This goes back to a point i made above or on another thread. The more ground we give to republicans the more they want until we lose. Ive previously suggested compromises that take into account many of Republics concerns. It is still not good enough. You guys just will not be happy till we throw an elderly lady out of her home and kick her into the street. After almost 60 years of her service to our nation as head of state, i find that simply disgusting.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“There for why should we bother when you will never be happy until absolute abolition of the monarchy?”
Well at least your right about that. I will never be happy until absolute abolition of the monarchy. If Charles were to relinquish all his titles, (His Royal Highness “The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Great Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen’s Service Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Chief Grand Commander of the Order of Logohu, Member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, Canadian Forces Decoration, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty), and throw away all his pretend medals too numerous to list but including ; (the Queen’s Service Order [New Zealand], the Queen’s Coronation medal, the Queen’s Silver Jubilee medal,the Queen’s Golden Jubilee medal, the Canadian forces decoration,the New Zealand commemorative medal,Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the Maltese Cross (GCB), worn as Grand Master and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, the order of merit civil version, etc. etc. etc.), and seeks some sort of democratic mandate for his activist zeal by actually standing for election, only then will I give him some credence.
Whether there are presidents who were once politicians, or not, in the rest of the world is of no consequence to a future British republic as far as I’m concerned or to republicanism in general. And anyway, why cannot a former party politician be an impartial head of state? Adopt your reasoning and we would have to have a hereditary speaker of the commons, named Windsor no doubt, as they are impartial genetically and suited to any role that comes up. What is important is the nature of the republic, the model of the republic, the checks and balances on the executive that will be in place, the constitution that a British Republic will have. These are the important issues.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
You guys just will not be happy till we throw an elderly lady out of her home and kick her into the street.
Get your facts straight Simon. The Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, and will continue to if she’s still alive when we get our republic.
July 14th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Simon.
I don’t want to “… throw an elderly lady out of her home and kick her into the street. After almost 60 years of her service to our nation as head of state…”.
Nor do I believe that is the aim for most Republicans (communists and the generally envious outwith).
QEII and the older Windsors should get a golden handshake and the thanks of the nation for services rendered.
Then it’s time to move on.
Monarchists commonly say “If it’s not broken, why fix it?”
Unfortunately, ‘it’ IS very broken.
Surely, the democracy of Britain is worth investing time and effort in repairing properly and not just patching over with sellotape?
July 14th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Bob
Right so there is no point in society caving to your demands on certain areas which you have a problem with because you will never accept the monarchy.
So why should we bother dealing with ur concerns. The government should be going out of its way to make sure people do not go down the path of republicanism, not appeasing republicans.
Matt,
Do you have to own a property for it to be considered your home?
Davidke,
It may not be the reason why republicans want what they want, but that is the outcome and it is deeply disturbing.
We could improve parts of our democracy without the abolition of the monarchy. The vast majority of republics concerns could be dealt with without destroying such an important part of our heritage. Democracy in Britain is impacted far more by parliament. Things like the house of lords i want to see abolished, MPs should be more accountable, the parliament should have more powers over the executive. All of this would have a huge impact on our democracy (far more than abolition of monarchy would) and it would be a popular and more obtainable goal.. yet people choose to waste their time by seeking to dethrone a very popular Queen that every single person here even if they wont admit it knows will not happen.
If its not broke dont fix it does apply in this case. Some parts of our system may not be perfect and could be improved, but our system works and has worked for hundreds of years.
Every single one of Republics serious concerns could be addressed, but like with bob at the end of the day he isnt going to be happy until we have Republic in our country name or as our government type.
Im loyal to my Queen, i do not think any reform is urgently needed but im not against certain reforms in general. We could bring about many radical reforms that allow those of us who happen to like the monarchy to remain happy. Instead Republic simply wants a non violent version of “off with their heads” rather than a compromise.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Simon, all the problems of our democracy you talk about are directly related to the fact that Britain is not a democracy but a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy is not just the Queen living in a house, it is the basis for the British political system. The Crown provides parliament its sovereignty and the executive its power.
Not only that but it is used by those who want to defend the status quo to block any reform. That defence of the status quo is helped enormously by people like you who carp on about “Her Majesty” this, that and the other and how we mustn’t “destroy our heritage” etc etc. The institutions and powers you want to see reformed are defended by those who benefit from the current monarchical set-up and the sycophancy and deference it attracts from people like you helps to protect our political system from the serious analysis, scrutiny and reform it dearly deserves.
Bottom line is that if parliament and the executive are reformed along the lines we suggest, and ‘every one of our serious concerns’ is addressed, there would be no room for or point to the monarchy in our constitution. It would be reduced to a decorative bauble. Now you might like that bauble and you might like to watch it in awe at how pretty it is, but that can be done with it occupying any space in our constitution.
In short, as we are not advocating exile or execution for the Windsors, the ‘royal’ family can continue to do what they do, but on their own time and at their own cost. People like you can still look up to them and fawn over them, people like us can enjoy the rights and privileges of a modern, democratic constitution.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I have read most of the points on this thread and agree with some; disagree with others. But quite frankly, on questions of whether the head of state should be a politician and what his/her role in the constitution should be I have no idea. I suspect many other Republicans don’t either. Although the points raised are important considerations in the end game, I believe the aim of this movement should not be about fine detail and arguments of minutiae. It should be about building a broad solid case for a Republic and then getting the message out.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
I quite agree Rob.
July 15th, 2010 at 10:26 am
One thing IS clear: there should be no minimum age to be elected as President, all those who have the right to vote at a Presidential election should also have the right to stand as a candidate (so the age of franchise becomes the de facto age).
In many countries a candidate has to have the support of a certain number of parliamentarians to qualify for the final public ballot. This is, in my opinion, fair and democratic; otherwise the ballot papers will be the same length as war and peace, the counting too complicated to carried out within a reasonable period and I can think of nothing more calculated to put off the electorate. One of the disadvantages is that smaller parties (such as the Greens, Plaid Cymru or SNP) would not be able to get their chosen candidates onto the ballot paper but this could be resolved by placing a maximum number on the number of parliamentarians of a particular party grouping who can support a candidate, say 80 or 90, after which the members of that party would be obliged to support someone else or not support anyone at all. (Rather like John McDonal giving up his position in the Labour leadership race to allow Diane Abbott to progress).
The playing field for the final candidates could be made level with the use of a proportional voting system(although I am not sure how such a system works, particularly given the national nature of a Presidential election).
July 16th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Graham,
Most flaws in our democracy need no alteration at all to our constitutional monarchy. We can abolish the lords and make parliament hold the executive to account more without becoming a republic. The problem with our democracy is bad leadership from the politicians. If the people of this country want political, electoral or constitutional reform… they must vote for it.
And we choose who sits in parliament, which forms the executive. How they screw things up after being elected is our own fault.
I think there has been a lot of constitutional, electoral and political reforms over the centuries. We have managed it without abolition. In 10 years time we will have an elected second chamber. That is going to do far more to improve our democracy than abolition of the monarchy. Lords edit and vote on our laws, the Queen simply signs them.
It would provide us with a head of state the vast majority of this population wish to keep. Whilst dealing with the boring bits you guys always go on about.
but it is pretty! I dont get how you can not like it all, it makes me feel very proud and i enjoy seeing it and knowing it is there. It is Britains cultural heritage. The monarchy played such a huge role in shaping our nation today. If it can be preserved it should be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KewBjeU8QY That is simply wonderful. Why not keep all that whilst just addressing the constitutional / admin concerns you have? It could be done and would be more popular and harder to oppose for people than the non violent “off with your heads” advocated.
Why do your rights and feelings come above my own and those of the majority of people in this country that remain loyal to our Queen.
July 16th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Rob,
This is part of the problem. You republicans disagree on what is the best way forward although Republic itself advocates styling it on the Irish model which is really going to add insult to injury to those loyalists in Northern Ireland. Not only would we be abolishing the monarchy and all becoming “republicans” , wed be saying Ireland has the right sort of system. The idea of it makes me physically sick at how people here could be so insensitive to the struggles of our brothers and sisters in the Province who have fought for decades to remain British.
ya that is the easy way of doing it for you guys i guess. Making it sound like everything to everyone because there are no details. The separatists in Scotland do this too. They talk about how wonderful Scotland would be if independent, they talk about how flawed the union is, yet when you get down to the detail…. they run scared and say things have to be decided at a later date. The more detail you give, the more people are put off when they realise the full implications of such radical proposals such as abolition or separation.
Andrew Burchell
i disagree, there should be a minimum age limit for president and for senators. This could be tied more into a minimum number of years experience, rather than making it about the persons age, but somethings needed.
It is a pretty pointless method though. You will basically have the two major political parties picking their own candidates and then it goes to a popular vote. The popular vote will often come down to party lines and who is popular at the time of the election.
So lets see, we elect labour in 1997, in 2000 there is a presidential election and they get their man into office. Either way we will end up with a president that is supported by one party and opposed by another along with similar splits within the population.
You will never get Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, UKIP, BNP, SNP, DUP and UUP to agree on a single candidate, at the moment they all support the monarchy and our present head of state.
Your proposed cap of 80/90 MPs votes, would simply create even more division within parties, let alone the country as a whole.
July 16th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Simon
We have had very little constitutional reform over the past 200 years.
Saying “It would provide us with a head of state the vast majority of this population wish to keep” is a circular argument: “people should support the monarchy because they support the monarchy”. The thing is, our job is to get people to support getting rid of the monarchy, if we do that then your argument falls down immediately.
So you really don’t have any argument here do you? You accept that our constitution needs to be changed, almost entirely, but your only defence is that you like the Queen and want to enjoy the pomp and pageantry associated with deference and servility.
As I’ve said, you can have that while Britain has a republican constitution.
The serious reforms needed for our constitution are still unlikely to happen because of the power of the Crown and the monarchy’s role in defending the status quo. We may or may not get Lords reform, if we do it’ll most likely be because of pressure from republican minded Lib Dems, but watered down by others who oppose real democracy. It certainly won’t change the fundamental basis for our undemocratic constitution, and it won’t make the executive more accountable or limit its powers at all.
July 16th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
July 17th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Graham
There has been little change to parts relating to the monarchy, some of which we would change today if it wasnt for the fact the Queen is head of state of 15 other realms there for it is not simple for us to make changes at this time, we must wait for the Queens death.
There has been huge constitutional change over the past 200 years. Giving most men and women the right to vote, the parliament act ensuring the commons can overrule the lords, the human rights act (sadly), Devolution etc. There should not be a huge amount of constitutional alterations, a country like the USA has only had less than 2 dozen amendments to its constitution. Endless constitutional change is not always a good thing.
Something many people will never support. Which is why a compromise where by the monarchy remains but is reformed so that it addresses many republican concerns seems reasonable and more achievable.
No, i do not think there is a need to change things (with the exception of dealing with the line of succession issues, which id support dealing with today if the Queen was just our head of state and not of 15 other realms whod all have to agree and change their own constitutions).
I am saying i see ways that certain things could be improved to address some of republics concerns if that is what the British people want.
Sorry but if we become a republic i can not have that. I will be stuck with a some jumped up politician as my head of state that i will have no respect for. Much better to have a written constitution which addresses many of Republics concerns, but still maintains the monarchy. Such a constitution could include the method that Britain would become a republic if that is what the clear majority of the people. Ive mentioned before many of the other things we could do as well.
But at the end of the day people like yourself will never be satisfied. There for why should we bother making changes, when the vast majority of the British people are happy with the monarchy.
I am being very serious. You ignore the symbolism and how damaging your proposals would be to a large community in Northern Ireland. To have the insult of us praising their system whilst destroying and condemning our own is most unwise. You could use another example apart from the Republic of Ireland
You have to surely accept and admit Irish Republicans would celebrate if we became a republic. I can imagine the sorts of scenes wed see. It does make me sick and depressed just thinking about it. How can we just dismiss and tolerate these sorts of technical problems with becoming a republic?
Im sorry i just dont think such foreign forms of governance are compatible with our nation .
July 18th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Simon, put your nonsense to the test by supporting a referendum!
Also, stop talking about how we must stick to rules that were decided decades or even centuries ago. Time moves on, yes let’s remember what happened in the past but let’s shape our own future.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
Many countries seem to pick has-been politicians. That does not appeal to me though I would not bar someone who has been a party politician. People, now dead, who might have made good presidents are Judge Stephen Tumim, and Group-Captain Leonard Cheshire. One, still living, is former MP George Walden.
People would value a person of stature, independence, and character.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
Simon:
As you’ll have noticed, I’ve only replied very sparingly to your dross in recent months – because frankly I’m sure it’d be easier to get stone to bleed than to try and make you see sense. But I absolutely must address this point, because your hypocrisy here is so transparent that even a mole with no eyes could see right through it!
There has been little change to parts relating to the monarchy, some of which we would change today if it wasnt for the fact the Queen is head of state of 15 other realms there for it is not simple for us to make changes at this time, we must wait for the Queens death.
I recall plain as day that, when I explained how my bad experiences in New Zealand – i.e. frequently being treated in such a way as would cause me to be arrested for inciting racial hatred if I treated a Kiwi that way in Britain – helped set me on the path to republicanism, you replied very categorically, “New Zealand is a sovereign nation – what they do is up to them.” Yet here you saying that the Queen’s status as monarch of fifteen other sovereign nations – including NZ – means that we are not allowed to alter the heart of our constitution because it would put those independent countries in an awkward position.
Well I’m sorry mate, but you can’t have it both ways: if NZ, Australia, Canada etc. are sovereign nations, then their constitutional affairs are entirely their responsibility, not ours, which means that we are not obliged to give a moment’s thought to such matters in determining our constitutional arrangements. If you deny this, then you are admitting that so-called imperialists like you actually want Britain to be the slaves of the countries she once ruled. But then I know this already, so what’s new?
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
I would favour the Latvian model of a Republic, because I would advocate this because are stable form of Democracy that has been impecable in dealing with odious transition from Soviet subvert, to a fully fledged member of NATO the EU and member of the association of true democracies! The Role of the President of the Republic to act intermediary, to stand up for the people and act mediator in times of political infighting. Valdis Zatlers is one the most great figures I admire since Vaira Vike Freihgberg! We would be a follower of their example as symbolic for all nations to look up.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 pm
The Democratic Republic of Croatia recently elected Ivo Josipović as their President.
Before entering Politics, he was a music composer and won on an Anti-sleaze/Anti-corruption ticket.
He seems to be sticking to his word. How we here in Britain could do with some of that oomph & determination.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Rob D,
Why? Why must we spend 10s of millions on a referendum no one apart from Republicans here seem to want? As i have said before, over 90% of the vote in the recent general election went to parties that support the continuation of the monarchy, a referendum on those grounds is incredible.
Like i said elsewhere i would support a referendum on the condition that when we monarchists win it in a landslide, Republic and all republican campaign groups close down along we new measures to be introduced in all British schools to ensure the clear will of the British people is being explained in our schools properly.
Sadly if we did have a referendum and you lost badly it would not change your views. You lot would still campaign for abolition of the monarchy.
So what do we get out of it?
John Steggles,
I would think almost every country picks a politician to become their president sadly, except in cases involving military coups where the general tends to become the president.
Sadly having a politician as head of state is not attractive to me.
Matt,
They are sovereign states and can decide for themselves what to do, but they have not altered the line of succession which would cause everything to be out of sync, Britain should not change either to avoid causing political problems in 15 sovereign states and also for our Queen.
There is no need for change now. We can keep the current rules until the Queens death, then most if not all of those sovereign states will become Republics, ending the final ties of Empire. it will be a very very sad and emotional moment on top of the death of Her majesty too.
But we will deal with these issues then. Now we can carry on enjoying being a commonwealth realm and our shared bond with Australia, Canada etc.
Paul Simon Case
Hmm i will look at the Latvian system sometime, from a quick look i see parliament was split like in most republics. 60/40% though so it was better than in others like Germany.
Ash,
I see he was involved in a certain political party yet just gives it up because a president isnt allowed to be a member. I do not get how he can be considered neutral by people. :\
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Simon:
They (the other Commonwealth Realms) are sovereign states and can decide for themselves what to do, but they have not altered the line of succession which would cause everything to be out of sync, Britain should not change either to avoid causing political problems in 15 sovereign states and also for our Queen.
The fact that none of those countries have altered the line of succession is neither here nor there. The point is that if we abolish the monarchy we are not compromising their constitutional positions: if the Queen ceased to be Queen of the UK tomorrow she would still be Queen of Australia (for example); and since Australia is a sovereign state, if her government wishes to respond to the new practical circumstances of the House of Windsor by patriating its members to establish a ‘home-based’ monarchy, then that is their prerogative. In that event the other realms would not be compromised either, because they would continue to have an absentee head of state as they do now (albeit in New Zealand’s case only a 2-and-a-half-hour flight away).
Of course in reality there’s no way that’d ever happen, because most Aussies would wretch at the thought of Elizabeth, Philip & co taking up residence in their country. But like I said, they’re a sovereign state, so that’s their problem – not ours.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Matt Showering
I was not talking about abolition of the monarchy. Of course if we wanted to abolish it we could do that without worrying about what happens in the other states. But i was talking about making reasonable alterations to the line of succession to address certain issues.
I fully support alterations being made, but only following the Queens death when the other nations will be debating if they become republics or not. That is the time for us to make the change with any that decide to keep the monarchy.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Simon, you wanna try and take me on at debating the technicalities of a shared monarchy? Good luck to you!
It is only convention which suggests that all 16 Commonwealth Realms must agree on any changes to the line of succession. The official position in the eyes of international law is that if the British government wants to change the succession of the British monarchy, it may do so without the succession of the Australian monarchy being affected; likewise if the New Zealand government wishes to change the succession of the NZ monarchy then that of the Canadian monarchy is not affected; and so on & so forth.
This is just one of a great many contradictions between theory and reality which highlight how absurd the monarchy has become.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:55 am
“I see he was involved in a certain political party yet just gives it up because a president isnt allowed to be a member. I do not get how he can be considered neutral by people. :”
It’s unlikely he has cast aside any political views he held before taking the job of President, but then no one is asking him to become an Apolitical. Anyone who’s grown up has their own opinions. It’s just some are better at keeping them to themselves than others.
why does anyone consider British Monarchs to be neutral when:
*Alexandrina Victoria was blatantly biased towards Disreali (Tory) over Gladstone (Liberal)
* Bowes-Lyon warmly endorsed Chamberlain (Tory) on that balcony
* Liz Windsor appointed Tory Alec Douglas-Home as PM on the basis of ….?