30 Apr 2009
So many monarchists start their argument against us by deriding politicians, telling us a “neutral” unelected head of state is better than an elected one, arguing that the voters wouldn’t possibly want someone they choose (repeating the same tired old “who wants president Brown/Blair/Thatcher” argument).
In short, they see this debate about a choice between ‘dodgy’ politicians who are only interested in short term gain or ‘noble’ royals dedicated to duty and country. What’s so concerning about this view is just how wrong-headed it is. If you are genuinely concerned about the nature and power of politicians, then support for the monarchy makes no sense at all.
The real choice here is between a genuinely democratic republican constitution, based on the idea that ‘the people’ (that’s you) are in charge, or our deeply undemocratic ramshackle political system we have at the moment, which very much puts the politicians in control.
Currently our constitution is based on the idea that sovereignty (the ultimate source of power over which there is no other authority) lies at the top, in parliament and with the Crown. Both Crown and parliament are effectively controlled by the Prime Minister (with a few notable exceptions as we saw yesterday). This means the politicians have all the power they could possibly want. At least, one politician does.
In our current system the royals have – for the most part – virtually no role to play in political decision making. So there is no point in arguing about the fictional benefits of having an unelected head of state when that person has no control over the political process. All the evidence shows that it is simply wrong to argue that the monarch “warns and advises” the PM, or that she can act as a check on his ambitions.
If you want to complain about the way our politicians behave, what they get away with, what laws and treaties they pass without popular support and so on, just consider for a moment that all these problems are happening now, in the current system, with the monarchy in place.
It is no surprise that most senior politicians are pro-monarchy. The monarchy is pro-politician. It gives them considerable power. There is no law they cannot pass, no restriction on our freedom they cannot impose. There is no authority in place to stop them. Yes, we have the Human Rights Act and we have EU law. But those only apply in Britain for as long as our politicians agree that they should apply.
The powers of government can be used in different ways. Firstly, our government can use parliament to enact any law it wishes. As noted above, it is a rare occasion when the government doesn’t get its way in parliament (which is why votes like yesterday’s are seen as such a major blow to the PM). The government can also bypass parliament by using the Privy Council and the royal prerogative – relics of the feudal age left in place precisely because of the sweeping and convenient powers they give ministers.
A disturbing example of the extent of these powers is the case of the former residents of Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean. These people have been battling in the courts to gain permission to return to their home after they were removed to make way for a US military base. The High Court eventually ruled in their favour. The government used its power to effectively overturn that ruling – without debate and without warning.
To quote the Guardian article at the time:
Instead of using the normal legislative process, the Foreign Office was able to change the law by use of orders in council, a remnant of the once all-powerful royal prerogative.
The new order replaces the existing constitution of the territory and “makes clear, as a principle of the constitution, that no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted access to any part of it”.
So without any discussion in parliament – and despite a High Court ruling – the rights of thousands of islanders were wiped out at the stroke of a government pen.
This amounts to the exercise of arbitrary power, power based not on the rule of law but on the rule of men. That’s the system we currently have. It is the system that breeds the kind of politics that so many now find objectionable. It is a system based on monarchy.
The alternative is a democratic written constitution, a constitution that defends our liberties and protects us against the arbitrary decisions of politicians. A republic is about “we the people” (that’s you again) being in charge. The power of the parliament and government would be limited, an accountable and elected head of state would have a legitimate role to play in defending the constitution. Importantly sovereignty would lie with the people. We would stand above parliament, delegating power to it. No longer would politicians rule over us, treating us like helpless subjects or as a challenge to their natural authority that must be controlled. Instead we would rule ourselves, as free citizens in charge of our own political destiny.
That’s the real choice on offer.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am and is filed under A future republic, Constitutional reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
April 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Those who claim ‘unelected is better then elected’ need to open their eyes. At least we got rid of and will get rid of ‘elected’ that we do not want (i.e. at least each elected ‘leader’ has the idea that they will not be there forever and they don’t have centuries old propaganda protecting their image – if any president, even back in the day, choped off his child’s mother’s head I think there would be more of a scandal about it even now), while we are very much stuck with the unelected who knows they will find a way to get away with even murder. If the ‘unelected’ proved they were worthy of the position they are in I probably wouldn’t be here, if they really kept an eye on the ‘elected’ then perhaps the ‘elected’ wouldn’t be the way they are; which begs the question: if the role of the ‘unelected’ is to watch over the ‘elected’, and the ‘elected’ get it wrong, how much should we blame the ‘unelected’. As for the ‘unelected’ advising the ‘elected’, I have trouble understanding where would the ‘unelected’ gain such skills since they live ever so sheltered life, and as far as I can tell they only know about life from books and ’stories’ – just the way I know financial markets that’s how they know life; and I wouldn’t advise you to trust me with your money even though I had an A.
It is obvious the system as it is, is NOT building a better tomorrow.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:08 am
*clap* *clap* *clap* *clap* *clap*
A brilliant analysis, Graham. Which is why the monarchists won’t ever appear on this thread to defend the indefensible.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:39 am
By the way Graham, have a look at monarchist “thinking” in action: http://timworstall.com/2009/04/29/changing-your-name/ and read the comments.
Its truly pathetic to watch.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
This is not really an anti-monarch piece is it? It’s an anti-unwritten constitution piece.
A few things.
Firstly, the ability of the executive to abuse the Royal Prerogative can easily be dealt with via legislation under the current system i.e. outright abolition is some or all areas or constraints based on a vote in one of more house, or indeed a referendum. There are various ideas on this, in the context of international treaties, in Dan Hannan MEP’s book (“The Plan”).
Secondly, a written constitution with or without a Republic does not make “the people” supreme. It makes the constitution supreme and by implication, in any common law jurisdiction, makes the judiciary supreme.
I am coming around to the idea that there is actually merit in reforming both of these aspects – to affirm the Rule of Law over Parliamentary Sovereignty – but neither gives weight one way or t’other to the Queen v President Blair/Thatcher/Rupert Murdoch issue.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:06 am
The “head of State” argument is a vexed one that we struggle with in Australia. The Monarchists have for a long time been claiming that the Queen is our head of state, and now have switched to the Governor-General in Australia being our head of state.
The monarchists point to the fact that this title does not appear in our constitution. A silly debating point to confuse the fact that the Queen is at the Apex of our government. It does raise the question though of whether they think the queen being seen as our “boss” is a negative now??
Lyn Petrie jnr dep Chair ARM
May 9th, 2009 at 6:16 am
Richard Sable:
Yes. And a written constitution is an absolutely essential requirement for any meaningful post-Monarchy settlement.
The United Kingdom is not a representative democracy. Referenda are not binding on Parliament, and can be cheerfully ignored. Abolishing the Monarchy without a Written Constitution and Bill of Rights that actually limits the powers of the Head of State, the Judiciary and Parliament will actually make things worse, concentrating power in the hands of the lucky Prime Minister and especially to the unelected State that really runs Britain.
Yes, it does. It means that the people get the final say in how they are governed, and have a mechanism through plebiscite which every part of the State is bound by.
Does this mean that the American model of limited government is unimproveable? No. Clearly there were mistakes made which have cost Americans dear. That’s what the debate is about.
What about President Timmy Mallett? Or President Gordon Ramsey? Or President [insert idiot hate figure here]?
Please note that unlike the current system, an elected President only serves for a maximum two terms of five years each and is directly elected. Note also that Parliamentary and Judicial terms of office would also be limited.
The point of a President in a constitutional republic is to be the final defence against the Parliament and Judiciary usurping powers that the Constitution says they do not have. Thus a model President does not decide on economic, or foreign or other political policies, but does have the final say on the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament or rulings made by the Judiciary.
In case of deadlock, the people are asked through direct plebiscite.
So your objections are simply straw, through and through.