19 Jul 2010
One of the arguments put forward by monarchists that is so simply and plainly wrong-headed is the idea that a correlation between monarchies and some statistical fact proves monarchy to be good and worthwhile. The classic argument on a similar theme is of course tourism: we have lots of tourists, we have a monarchy, therefore monarchy brings in tourists and monarchy is good. But the correlations go one better.
The most common version of this is on the issue of democracy or stability. The other day Simon, one of our regular monarchist visitors to the site, posted a list of countries that are arguably ranked in order of how democratic they are. Most were constitutional monarchies. It is often said that if you list countries by order of how stable they are most in the top 10 will be monarchies. But as most students and statisticians will know, a correlation proves nothing.
The democracy ranking is of course highly questionable, it depends on what is meant by democracy and by what criteria you measure and weight each factor taken into account. It is also highly subjective. What the correlation doesn’t tell us of course, are all the various factors that may lead to a country being ‘more’ democratic than others, or what the relationship is between the democracy ranking and the monarchy. For instance, monarchists would assume the conclusion to be drawn is: “best democracies are monarchies, therefore monarchy creates better democracies”. It doesn’t take too much contemplation to realise there is are two other possibilities: “the better quality the democracy the less demand for more significant reform, such as abolition of a constitutional institution”; or “the quality of the democracy and the existence of monarchy are entirely unrelated and there are other factors that lead to each phenomena”.
Same goes with the stability argument. This fallacy is even easier to spot. For the monarchists they argue: “Look at a list of the most politically stable countries, most are monarchies. Therefore monarchy provides stability.” Naturally, the more obvious conclusion is in fact the other way around: “Stable countries tend to keep their monarchies, therefore political stability is good for monarchies.” In other words, stable countries have monarchies because they’ve been lucky enough to be stable, it isn’t that their stability has been generated or protected by the monarchy.
In fact this last point should be abundantly clear to any student of history. Around 200 years ago almost all of Europe, and by extension most of the world, was governed by monarchy. Now only a handful of monarchies are left. We have witnessed a litany of instability, revolution and warfare during the watch of Europe’s royal families. One by one they fell, brought down by their inability to provide peace, security or prosperity. In other words, by their instability. As those countries recovered from their monarchy-inspired chaos what did they do? Each and every one chose democratic republican forms of government, as a better guarantee of stability and peace.
So when you see another correlation being trotted out in defence of the monarchy just think, what’s more likely? That the correlation proves the strength and virtue of an inherently bad form of government, or is it more likely that the correllating factors are unrelated, or perhaps that the relationship is quite the opposite of the one monarchists wish it to be?
This entry was posted on Monday, July 19th, 2010 at 10:07 pm and is filed under Monarchy myths. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 19th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Does time pass by quicker for republicans? my post was 13 hours ago lol, thanks for the mention though.
My point was not that Constitutional monarchies make the best democracies, although there is of course considerable evidence to suggest this is the case and plenty who would argue it, not a time consuming debate i would want to get into though.
My point was simply, some of the best democracies on the planet also have constitutional monarchies. I was not trying to say it was “because” of the monarchy, simply that having a monarchy is not a roadblock to being considered one of the greatest democracies in the world.
There for when asking the question “Is Britain a democracy”, the excuse that we are not because we are a constitutional monarchy, is not a valid one. I accept there are improvements to the monarchy that could be made to make it better, but there are also huge improvements to parliament which would have a far bigger impact on our position in the rankings.
Whilst it is not exactly the same thing, this does make me think of something republicans seem to say or think.
We are people. >
Our constitution starts “We the people” (USA) >
There for the people are sovereign.
Just because it says that does not mean they are any more sovereign than British people.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:02 am
I’m not aware of any republicans that believe that a constitution simply needs to start with “we, the people” in order to make people sovereign.
In the US the people actually are sovereign, the state and federal governments are subordinate to the people.
July 20th, 2010 at 9:57 am
How? American people elected their state and federal governments. British people elect our local and national governments. In what way is the US government subordinate to the people but ours is not?
If it all comes down to wording, like “Her Majesty’s Government” and “the Queen is sovereign”, these things may be true and they are very important in a symbolic way, but in reality when it comes to technical differences, i just cant see how people in a republic are more sovereign than we are. Both people elect their governments, we are able to elect a government that would abolish the monarchy.
I see republicans on here say often about the people being sovereign in a republic.. It is all just words, as i pointed out before the Spanish constitution says:
So are Spanish people just as sovereign as Americans despite spain having a monarchy? Are Spanish people more sovereign than we are because we dont have a fancy document sayin “we are sovereign”?
July 20th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I would argue that, while it is not the complete answer, the abolition of the hereditary/appointed principle would inherently make this country more democratic. After all, do we not have – alongside our unaccountable, unelected, head of state – an entire House of Parliament consisting of appointed placemen, set for life, who, whatever their moral character we are forced to address as ‘Lord’, handing over to them the vital powers of reform in our legislature?
A genuine democracy should do away with the idea that wealth, privelege and status at birth sets any onew citizen above another, and it should start by providing us with an accountable legislture and an accountable head of state.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:15 am
No, Simon, it’s not just words.
In the US the government is subordinate in that it cannot do whatever it pleases, it is subject to continuing scrutiny from Congress and to significant limitations on its power from the constitution. This is limited still further by the federal nature of the country. State governments are not subject to the power of the federal government nor reliant on the federal government for their existence. The state governments are also subordinate to their people, the people being able to determine the nature of the constitution and how much power is to be delegated to the state governor or state Congress.
The whole ethos and culture of politics in America is different as a consequence.
In this country we have no authority to tell the government what to do, or to limit its power or determine the rules of the political game. Authority simply doesn’t derive from the people, it derives from the Crown. That makes a significant political, legal, constitutional and cultural difference.
It is not remotely just a matter of words. It is a fundamental difference between living as subjects (meaning we are subject to a higher authority) and living as citizens, equal in law as governors of our own society.
July 20th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“Authority simply doesn’t derive from the people, it derives from the Crown. That makes a significant political, legal, constitutional and cultural difference.”
A very nice statement and one which could be used as a soundbite on leaflets, posters and facebook etc.
Given that authority derives from the Crown, and it does, and given that the Crown is what it is, then surely our democracy is fatally flawed.
Get them out now!
July 20th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“Authority simply doesn’t derive from the people, it derives from the Crown. That makes a significant political, legal, constitutional and cultural difference.”
It also means that our civil rights can be removed by a simple Act of Parliament.
Mrs Windsor would not do a damn thing to stop it, nor would she if she could as it would imperil the monarchy.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:18 pm
All the more reason to remove the monarchy Keith!
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:04 am
This is so good a debate! This is the crux of the matter. I am truly impressed with the Republic argument and position.
If the American Democracy is embraced wholesale, this campaign will be rushed and mugged by the public, beating down doors to sign up. No more fancy “hybrids”, go for a full democracy, the only one true form of democracy, the so-called American model, it is not an American model, it is the human model; everyone contributed to its perfection: Brits, French, Africans, Mexicans… it’s God’s own democracy. Simon’s penchant for fallacy not-withstanding, this is as good as it gets… keep trucking and good luck to you all. In about a year, the US campaign for 2012 sets off, I hope Simon pays attention as the people select and elect their Head of State.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:08 am
eclub1
Alas, if you think the British people will be beating down the door to clamour for a US style democracy I think perhaps you don’t know the British people very well.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Sadly that is very true, Graham. There may be a considerable amount of Republicans like you, me and all the other supporters but when you see on tv the enormous crowds coming out to clap and cheer at whatever event Mrs Windsor is attending, I wonder if your teeth grind as much as mine do when it seem apparent that we’ll never convince the masses (read sheep). I’m the only Republican in my family and no matter how many points I raise, they still believe a monarchy is best. My parents in particular will watch anything to do with the Windsors.
To give you an example of how bad it is, and to keep on topic with the stability thing, one argument my father uses goes something like this “the queen or king acts like a barrier to prevent the government from going too far”. Although personally I find it hard to believe they would get involved, no matter how bad things got.
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
eclub1,
I enjoy American politics and followed the 2008 campaign very closely but it serves far more as a reminder as to why i do not want an elected head of state and why we should certainly not adopt the American system, which seems to be the most dangerous.
Whilst America is the only republic i have real respect for, i can not say the same thing about its system (except for the encouraged patriotism, which is impressive and we should use as a model). If i had to pick between one of the imperfect republics i would much rather go down the path of Switzerland which has a Federal Council. Of the Republics ive looked at theirs seems to be the most interesting, but still flawed.
Graham Smith,
We do agree on this! lol American “democracy” is probably a useful asset for the monarchy because it will put a lot of people off such a system. Off topic a second, dont know if you watched Question time last night, but some woman in the audience insulted the Queen by suggesting she and the royal family were foreign. Does Republic take a position on that sort of view? I dont often hear it repeated here by posters, but it is one of the standard attacks i see elsewhere when i come across republicans.
If we were not a democracy or did not have freedom, then the woman in question would not have been allowed to make her comment on a show to be broadcast on prime time TV. I couldnt believe it when she said what she said. The palace was getting some good PR from the panel, then that dreadful woman in the audience spoke and lowered the tone.
Jeremy,
It makes me proud when you see all the children and adults waving flags and celebrating or cheering when the Queen arrives. As i have said to people here before, it is one of the few occasions we allow patriotism in this country outside of sports. Its the union flag they tend to wave, not the Royal standard.. so it helps boost British patriotism.
Sadly if we did away with that it would be another nail in the coffin of this country.
Lets try a little experiment,
Does this really make your teeth grind?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPy6FJhd2vg
To me that makes me very proud of our monarchy and nation. I can understand some of the technical issues or concerns republicans here make about the constitution and power of parliament etc, but how is the stuff in that video so horrible we must end so much of our tradition and culture which would upset so many?
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Dear Simon,
Oh Dear, you are at it again ! Such propaganda films do not make our teeth grind,—-but they do make us want to head for the nearest vomitorium. What a pity so many people can be taken in by such stuff . Our country has indeed quite a few nails in its coffin at present, but becoming a republic would not be another one. I actually agree with you quite a lot about what is wrong with our country at present,( indiscipline in schools,crime etc etc ), but I believe that this disease has nothing to do with the monarchy . Also some aspects of Socialism ,( what you would refer to probably as “Socialist Crap” ),are not at all bad,and would help our diseased country no end. I am not talking about a lot of the pseudo -socialist hypocrisy peddled by the likes of Blair and Co.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Don’t worry, Barry. Simon won’t be gloating when “I vow to thee, my country” is performed for the first time as the National Anthem of the United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, at the inauguration of its first president!
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“It makes me proud when you see all the children and adults waving flags and celebrating or cheering when the Queen arrives. As i have said to people here before, it is one of the few occasions we allow patriotism in this country outside of sports. Its the union flag they tend to wave, not the Royal standard.. so it helps boost British patriotism”
Actually, Simon, one of the reasons there is a lack of British patriotism is because of the monarchy. People are told to channel their pride of their country through the monarch and her family, rather than the country itself, and to the extent of such lunacy that you are “not British” if you don’t support the monarchy. It speaks volumes that the Royal Standard is never allowed to fly at half-mast, because that would signify the monarchy dying, yet the Union Jack the Royals will happily allow to fly at half mast in its place. So it would seem the Royals are quite happy to see this symbolic “death of the country”.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Barry Kingsley
I do not see how such patriotism can make people vomit.
I am glad we agree on some of the problems facing our country, but would abolition of the monarchy solve some of them? I do not think it would, i think in some ways it would have a negative impact and hurt our nation even more.
Should we not focus on the biggest threats to our nation, rather than something that poses no serious threat but may not be to ones tastes?
Matt Showering
Whilst i like i vow to thee my country i really can not see it becoming our national anthem, even if we did abolish the monarchy. Sadly if we are to become a republic i do not think we would have a United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland left, our nation would be split. The chances of a united Ireland will certainly increase following abolition of monarchy which would be seen as a huge boost to republicans and a bitter blow to the loyalists and unionists in the province.
jammydodger
I do not accept that for one minute. Monarchy remains one of the only ways we have to celebrate our culture and nation. If you take that away we have one less thing to celebrate. The lack of patriotism is down to certain changes that have taken place over the past few decades.
Its down to the end of empire, mass immigration, left wingers, separatists, more freedom of choice, less respect for authority and the state, these sorts of problems.
You do not have to support the monarchy to be patriotic, but many of the most patriotic Brits i come across also support our Queen. It is Republic that refuses to even condemn separatists, it goes out of its way to appease them by saying they take no position on the union.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Simon:
…more freedom of choice [is a problem and has engendered a lack of patriotism]…
Erm, exactly what sort of ‘freedom of choice’ are you talking about here? I would chose my words very carefully if I were you.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Matt Showering
I mean things like being able to openly display disloyalty to our nation because we no longer try people for treason. Not teaching things like British history because the school or children choose to waste time on art or something like that. The ability of people to disrespect our own country without serious consequences. No national service because its an attack on freedom of choice. Its a choice if people view themselves as British or not, Immigrants are able to choose to relate to their past nations still and we have this awful multicultural society which breeds division.
Basically the left wing progression in our country that is like a cancer.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Simon,
Demonising the entire Republican movement as ‘left wing’ is a lazy counter response. There are valid reasons for abolish monarchy (before it abolishes itself) which could be labelled as ‘left’ or ‘right’.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Simon:
I mean things like being able to openly display disloyalty to our nation because we no longer try people for treason.
Err, we don’t hang people for treason anymore, but treason is still a crime unless I’m very much mistaken!
Not teaching things like British history because the school or children choose to waste time on art or something like that.
I can’t really comment here, because the education system has changed a lot since I left school 12 years ago. [Though when I took my GCSEs everyone had to do history or geography and one of the arts.]
The ability of people to disrespect our own country without serious consequences.
You’re going to have to be more specific here I’m afraid!
No national service because its an attack on freedom of choice.
I agree with you on national service provided there is a choice between civil and military service.
Its a choice if people view themselves as British or not, immigrants are able to choose to relate to their past nations still and we have this awful multicultural society which breeds division.
Well I’ve already made my views on multiculturalism perfectly clear, probably the major difference between my views and yours here is that I believe more work is required on the part of native Britons as well as immigrants to help the latter integrate into British culture.
But Ash is right – to label republicanism as Left-wing even by implication is ridiculous. Do you really think the US Republicans are a bunch of liberals?
BTW Graham if you’re monitoring I realise this is off-topic, but I’m trying to keep the Blog alive!
July 25th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
“I do not accept that for one minute. Monarchy remains one of the only ways we have to celebrate our culture and nation. If you take that away we have one less thing to celebrate”
… which supports what I said about the monarchy having killed off other forms of patriotism. The monarchy have made sure that if you’re celebrating Britain, you’re celebrating *them*, and you don’t have a choice in the matter.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
@jammydodger
Indeed. It’s one of the things I find most obnoxious about monarchists, their insistence that ‘patriotism’ is synonymous with their own beliefs. It’s quite contemptible really.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Not only that, but it shows a real dearth of imagination. It’s basically saying Britain has bugger all to offer the world other than the monarchy. Very sad AND unpatriotic!
July 25th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Contemptible isn’t a strong enough term.
Republicanism offers a far superior tradition than Monarchism.
Who in the right mind prefers to snub Milton, Payne & Hazlitt for Kings & Queens?
Maybe we should do more on this site to appeal to fair minded people about our finer tradition.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Ash Walsh,
My left wing comment was about all the other problems facing this country, however it is certainly the case Republicanism in the Britain (with the exception of Northern Ireland) is usually left wing.
Matt Showering
Ive no problem with the fact we have stopped hanging people, my concern is there are clear traitors in this country whos only loyalty is to foreign enemies like terrorists in pakistan and afghanistan. Why are we not trying these people for treason and ensuring they get life without parole?
History is compulsory in primary school still i think, but some schools opt out of GCSE history or students are able to choose between history/geography. Either way not enough is taught about British history, most people going through our education system today wont learn any detail about the Empire and how we helped create the civilised world.
People talk down Britain, insult our nation and yes our Queen, they disrespect our flag by burning it, they disrespect our culture. These sorts of things. I dont mean they should be locked up for such things, but such things should not just be tolerated as if it is their right to spread hate. If we can have laws to protect Religions and ethnic groups, why shouldnt we have laws to protect our own nation, its culture, traditions etc?
Agreed, although military for young men should be seen as the standard option.
I agree, i do not blame the immigrants. I blame our government which has tried to create this multicultural society. Its the government that should have ensured people integrate better, and i accept due to racism it was difficult originally because people chose not to allow certain immigrants to “fit in” and some still do.
I want everyone to feel British, i dont care about their skin colour or where their grandparents were from.
in this country it mostly is left wingers that oppose the monarchy.
jammydodger
The left wing have attacked other forms of patriotism and weakened it, the monarchy is one institution they have yet to kill off, but they do certainly try. Id rather that one remain than lose that…
July 25th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Simon,
I will leave it to you to tell us if you’re intending to promote dishonest arguments or of you’re simply misguided.
You shouldn’t tag Republicanism with healh & safety officials banning flags.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Ash Walsh
I was not, i was giving a list of problems in recent decades, Republicanism is just one issue. I accept you do not have to be of far left ideology to support a republic, all im saying is we all know its the more left wing that support it.
This is proven by the page showing MPs that support this cause. No conservatives and nor should there be. Im be sending one or two strongly worded letters to a conservative MP if they did openly advocate abolition in such a way.
My concern is that the lefties have undermined Britain and weakened patriotism (not blaming this on republicans). One of the few times people celebrate our nation today is through the monarchy, like at the Golden Jubilee. If we abolish the monarchy then that is another opportunity lost for ever and we can not be sure other things will take its place.
I certainly wouldnt want children waving flags at some politician thats head of state,
July 25th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Simon,
You seem to believe that MPs who are right leaning in their outlook have to be in the Conservatives & if they’re left, by default you’re not.
I put it to you one of the main reasons some Conservatives support the monarchy is because some are opportunists.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Ash Walsh
The conservative party is the only mainstream right of centre political party in this country although considering some of the policies ive had to listen to in recent weeks may be they aint even on the right anymore.
It may be the case that some conservatives are closet republicans, i can live with that if they keep their thoughts to themselves and respect the feelings of the overwhelming majority of conservative voters who support the monarchy.
It is very clear the overwhelming majority of MPs who disrespect our Queen and our traditions are on the left. They are usually always in Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
It may be the case that some Conservatives are closet republicans, I can live with that if they keep their thoughts to themselves and respect the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Conservative voters who support the monarchy.
Well I’m sorry, Simon, but I will never pass up the opportunity to try and explain to a fellow Conservative how and why I believe the monarchy to be repugnant to the core Conservative principles of minimal government, free markets and individual empowerment.
I can’t deny that more often than not my efforts here will be in vain, but I can live with that – particularly when I consider how much more frustrating my overall position would be if I were an Irish conservative. I am referring here to the fact that the main centre-Right party in Ireland, Fine Gael, is not only staunchly pro-European integration but – as Daithi recently pointed out on this Blog – supports stringent business sanctions against one of the Irish regions as a means of trying to preserve an almost dead language, despite its free market ethos.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
“It may be the case that some conservatives are closet republicans, i can live with that if they keep their thoughts to themselves and respect the feelings of the overwhelming majority of conservative voters who support the monarchy.”
Which would contradict your policy of marking ballot papers to indicate Republican candidates (with a Yellow star, perhaps?) to ensure the electorate knew who supported Monarchy or not.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Thanks Simon,
Of course all these things are just our opinions,( yours and mine). It is probably not possible to actually PROVE everything. However it is probably true ,empiracally, that a republican system would be much cheaper than a monarchy , and therefore extra funds could be put into solving many of our problems . Also an awful lot of man hours are wasted by flunkies and others which could be put to much better use in areas of our society where real work needs doing. The same goes for all the energy wasted in hero worship by adults not only of royalty but also of celebrities. A lot of money is wasted on that nonsense too. I can see why you do not understand why royalist propaganda would make people “vomit ” . Do not take me too literally, please. A more realistic expression would be for me to say that “my gorge rises” ,or in more modern parlance, “the hairs on the back of my neck tend to rise in disgust” when I come across noxious royalist propaganda.
August 1st, 2010 at 3:05 pm
The argument that all monarchies are perfect and democratic purely because Sweden happens to be one is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, Sweden DOES have a Monarchy but since 1974 it has had no formal prerogative. The right to veto legislation, dissolve Parliament and appoint the Head of Government have all been vested in the national parliament (the Riksdag). Indeed, the very concept of the “Crown prerogative” (i.e: that all power ultimately derives from the Crown – one of my personal dislikes of the Monarchy) no longer exists.
Of course I’m not praising the Swedish model at all. It appears to be just as bad, if not worse, than our own; it reminds me of the old saying about flogging a dead horse. It leaves the institution of the Head of State weak and suspended with little or no foundations; preserving what is clearly an outdated institution for no ultimate purpose or function at all. It’s rather like having an elected President with no powers; it weakens the very institution of the presidency and appears to suggest to the electorate that they are too ignorant or stupid to be trusted to elect a Head of State with any real authority.
In Sweden’s case it is a sad indictment of the Social Democrats who, despite over 40 years of a manifesto commitment to abolish the Monarchy, have never quite got around to fulfilling their pledge. Perhaps, dare I suggest it, because (like our own dearly beloved leaders) they have too much of a vested interest in the power they would be trying to suppress.
August 1st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Oh, and by the way Simon, National Service is most certainly a threat to freedom of choice (a little off topic, I know, but I can’t help attempting to counter such appallingly ignorant and bigoted comments).
Why, as a 17 year-old, should I be made to give up a year of my life to do any form of work on behalf of my country (or Elizabeth Windsor, since you appear so kean to conflate the two)? This assumption that young people need to be “brought into line” and “subjected to strict discipline” is quite frankly appalling and I will do everything in my power to stop mandatory national service ever returning to this country again.
Indeed, the silliness of most right-wingers on this matter is best demonstrated by their assertion that national service will cut incidences of violent youth crime. Ah, yes, of course: because we all know that the best way of cutting gun crime is to take every 16 year-old man and teach him how to fire a gun, don’t we?
August 1st, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Hi Andrew
You’ve really got me thinking there! I of course initially said that I agreed with Simon on National Service provided there was a choice between civil and military service – though I certainly disagree with his contention that military should be the standard for young men, as clearly not all young men are cut out for life in the military and none should be in any way stigmatised for choosing the civil option.
But now that I think about it, how exactly can I support the idea of National Service when I’m a resolute fiscal conservative who believes that the government has no business taking my money to fund services which either I’m never likely to need or which have not been there for me when I have needed them (real life experience not generalisation there BTW)? Because both tax and national service are essentially based on the same idea: the obligation of citizens to contribute to the running of the state. Obviously I accept that there are some things which the state has to pay for, meaning some taxes have to be levied. But in peacetime there is absolutely no need whatsoever for every citizen of a certain age to be working for the state in any capacity; so I completely retract everything I’ve previously said in agreement with Simon on this issue. The more crazy talk that troll comes out with, the more he demonstrates how socialism and monarchism go hand in hand.
Not that any of this stops the most fiscally conservative, (supposedly) anti-socialist politicians and media commentators advocating national service, of course. The joys of being a Conservative republican are endless. Life would be so much more straightforward for me if I’d been born American…