Subscribe to RSS feed
One of our regular commenters, Lewis, alerted us to the following response made by Peter Hitchens to a republican on his blog. I’ve gone through it point by point and attempted to correct his misapprehensions.
You can respond directly to Hitchens on his blog.
Most Republican arguments are puerile and ignorant recitations of false points – cost, luxury, authority.
Clearly I’d refute that I am either puerile or ignorant. Of course the cost of the monarchy (and the luxury embodied by it) comes into it – but only because it is used by the royal household itself as a reason for maintaining the status quo. I know you wouldn’t deploy such trivial arguments, but many monarchists do and we have to rebut them by proving that the monarchy is a hugely expensive way to run the office of head of state.
That said, if you read our website, come along to one of our events or debate with us, you’ll quickly find that we support a new republican constitution not out of envy or spite but because we believe it would be the best possible system of government. We want to take power from the hands of politicians and put it into the hands of the people. With a constitution based on popular sovereignty – rather than the power of Crown – we’d be in control of our own political destiny, for the first time in our history.
We advocate (as the vast majority of republicans do) a directly elected, ceremonial head of state, with clearly delineated reserve powers. Such a head of state would play a key role as guardian of the constitution, but couldn’t simply override the wishes of the government on a whim. Republicans believe that there are many excellent candidates for such a role and that the British people are perfectly capable of choosing one of them to be our head of state.
Those who object to inheritance as a way of choosing an essentially powerless person (who would be hugely powerful if elected) should be asked if they object to inheritance in all cases (such as property from their parents). In that case, they are in effect objecting to private property and the family – which is a political position – but one which has led to endless misery when applied.
It’s not inheritance per se that we’re opposed to, it’s hereditary public office. The point is though that the monarch isn’t powerless. The Queen holds great swathes of power which she hands wholesale to the Prime Minister of the day. As we often say at Republic: it’s not just Queen Elizabeth that’s the problem, it’s King Gordon too.
And there are, of course, some powers that the monarch personally retains, such as appointing Prime Ministers. In the eventuality of a hung parliament next year we will see just how “powerless” the Queen really is.
Divine Right is a specific political concept, long abandoned. Christians do believe that the anointed Monarch is chosen by God, and is his minister (see ‘the Prayer for the Queen’s Majesty’ in the Book of Common Prayer’). But Christians believe in divine providence in all things, guiding us through prayer and conscience to do that which is right and just. This does not mean that God can be cited as the authority for a wicked or despotic act.
Well, with the greatest of respect Mr Hitchens, not all Christians believe that the monarch is chosen by God. In fact, I’d suggest it is a small minority these days. The non-conformists probably wouldn’t have much truck with the idea and neither would a large number of Anglicans. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury now recognises the benefits of disestablishment. That’s not to mention many Catholics who are, of course, constitutionally discriminated against.
Then there is the need for a personal figure to whom the armed forces, the Church, the civil service and the judiciary should be able to owe non-partisan loyalty. Where the head of government and the head of state are combined, his servants (see especially the Nixon episode) are in effect above the law in actions they take on his orders, and have no alternative loyalty to which they can appeal.
The institutions that you list are very different. The armed forces, civil service and the judiciary owe their loyalty to the people of Britain, not the Windsor family. The armed forces will always be controlled by the government, as they are now, but in a republic could pledge allegiance to the British constitution – or the people.
I might add that any serious constitution is restrained by tradition and hierarchy from wild demagogic and short-term acts, and needs an embodiment of the rule of law and the national religion. Elected politicians cannot provide this.
You seem to be saying that the only “serious” constitution is the UK’s. Even the Scandinavian monarchies, by this reasoning, do not qualify as “serious”. That rules out a whole load of prosperous, stable, tolerant and open societies. They’re qualities I’d associate with a “serious” constitution.
A few years ago, we were being told by republicans that the Speaker could take over the role of head of state. Does anyone argue this now?
Some do. I wouldn’t, although it would still be a more accountable, and therefore more legitimate, system than the one we have now. At least the Speaker in such an arrangement could actually play a meaningful role in politics.
A good deal of the discussion is about not being diverted by conventional wisdom – as over the Houseof Lords which – precisely because it is not elected – is much the more independent and questioning of the two chambers of Parliament.
The House of Lords is a separate issue (although unsurprisingly, I disagree with your analysis).
I agree that conventional wisdom is best ignored, so let’s look at this afresh. We have a head of state who, in theory, has a role to play in keeping the government in check and protecting the liberties of the British people. The only problem is that our head of state is a hereditary monarch. She therefore has no democratic legitimacy and cannot be held to account for her actions. So, in return for a few palaces and castles, and a life of luxury for her family, she agrees to do whatever the PM tells her to. That’s not conventional wisdom – that’s our constitution.
Now, we have a choice. Either the monarch starts being more active in the political process (a turn of events I imagine you’d approve of, but which is democratically intolerable) or we make the head of state truly accountable. The only way to do so is through free and fair elections.
Those who criticise the Queen for having been too passive in recent years undoubtedly have a point. But this is not an argument against monarchy. The Queen, when she ascended the throne, probably could not imagine the trials she would have to endure and had not been trained for them. Her successor is differently placed and I expect a constitutional crisis in his reign.
As I expected, you’re not really defending the status quo, you’re making an argument for a politically active monarch. This puts you at odds with the vast majority of monarchists (as I’m sure you’re aware). The only question I would put to you is this: what if an active monarch does something you disapprove of? What if they refuse to sign a Bill that you feel is hugely important for the future of Britain (or vice versa)?
My point about North Korea and East Germany (or Iran and China) is that a Republican constitution is not an automatic guarantor of liberty in itself, and should not be offered as such. It is an invitation to knee-jerk fashionable republicans to go back to first principles and think about what they are saying.
Few of them have. Those that have are generally radical and atheistical socialists who grasp that a constitutional monarchy is a major obstacle to their aims.
North Korea, Iran and China do not have republican constitutions. They are not republics, they simply have the word “republic” in their titles. No state without free and fair elections, free speech and transparency can ever be a republic.
As for that old jibe about all republicans being socialists, I wonder what Bill Emmott or Stephen Pollard would make of that claim. Interestingly, those on the “old left” have often been the most fervent monarchists precisely because their aim was to take control of the state and steer it in the direction of socialism. The monarchy gave them the means to do so.
Tags: monarchy, oath, Peter Hitchens
November 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
How dare Hitchens claim to speak for all Christians with such nonsense. He also believes in Adam and Eve doesn’t he? I refuse to have his ludicrous claims landed on my doorstep.
I ain’t no socialist (any longer). If you want further proof that we’re not all “Commies” look at Tory-turned-Republican Matthew Showering!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@ Liam and James
I totally agree.
Many Christians, including myself, do not believe in the “annointing of monarchs”.
The “Divine Right of Kings” is a Middle Ages truism invented by kings to maintain their “legitimacy” of seizing and maintaining power.
With regards to the House of Lords, just who is my representative in the Upper House? Where are the Lords surgeries, manifestos and voting slips?!
Independent it might be (although it clearly is still party political and butresses the establishment) but democratic, peer* representative and answerable it certainly ain’t!
Just a few weeks ago, I had cause to write and complain directly about one of the Lords going on national television and basically making things up about a serious matter.
Needless to say, I have not had any sort of reply or retraction. There is no accountability in the Lords, either.
* – with a “small p”
November 24th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Even if it was true about Christians believing a Monarch being annointed by the Christian God, should it remain just that (their belief)?
As much as I agree with Hitchens about Cameron & the NHS, it has to be said, it seems that He believes in Conservatism for Conservatisms sake.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I believe a good idea would be to, as you are clearly associated with him, ask Christopher Hithcens, Peter Hictens’s brother, to debate with Peter on here. Or if that’s not possible have him debate with Graham or James. These debates could taken written form or, more interestingly, could take the form of a televised debate that could be posted on Republic TV.
Kind regards
Lewis
November 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Just take a look at the House of Lords, see whose there and who is soon to be. Two convicted felons still sit there unless I am misinformed,(Watson [arsonist]and Archer[perjurer]), a disgraced ex-speaker sits there, peers embroiled in the cash for amendments scandal still sit there, Jacqui Smith will soon be there. I presume the Writ of Summons or whatever it’s called will be sent out as usual to all the dodgy peers who are members of this “gentleman’s” club and we poor sods will have absolutely no say. We can’t even petition our Head of State, although I suppose that’s not strictly true, we could I suppose but only if we are prepared to be fobbed off. What an absolute farce.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:00 am
@ Bob
Thank goodness for the Parliament Act 1911 otherwise We’d have a House full of unelected tax dodgers spending taxpayers £’s.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:08 am
In his youth P Hitchens was in the SWP/Trotskyist or something similar. He might have admitted that in person (or I might have read it) when I organised a debate on the monarchy a few years ago at Conway Hall, Red Lion Sq, WC1 and PH was up against Jonathan Freedland. I do not recall him calling JF ‘ignorant, stupid, thoughtless and malign’. I think JF would have found that slanderous and indeed I do about myself (BA, MSc, Mensa member and often accused of thinking too much rather than too little). Anyway, by resorting to common abuse he has lost what argument there is. He also lost the Conway Hall debate though that was inevitable, CH being Humanist and leftish.
The God arguments sound silly to many religious people – as Liam has pointed out, why should the CofE be a favoured Christian sect except as a historical accident. Even some bishops admit they have no democratic right to be in the Lords and the CoE should be disestablished. A head of state should not be head of a church as well, clearly. Secularism is only the equal democratic rights for the religous (all the different types) and the millions of non-religious without religious privilege. Secularists are as moral and ethical as religious people (in the case of one RC, T.Blair who should have many thousands of innocent deaths on his conscience, more so). Separation of church and state as in France and US (the fact many individual US citizens are religious misses the point) is a sine qua non for a modern democracy.
The criticism PH uses against Elton at the beginning of his piece is also strange. He asks what harm Philip has ever done to BE as if it is only a personal slight that BE feels, not realising that the powerful arguments against monarchy are the quite objective ones in a political philosophy sense, strongly preferring greater democracy and less deferential acceptance of aristocratic privilege so we can be citizens.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:28 am
@ Jennifer,
Paradoxically (you might say!), I’m quite in agreement with you with regards the Church of England for at least two reasons:-
1) If the Church was disestablished, it would take out one of the sycophantic crutches that supports this monarchy, and;
2) The Church could concentrate on what it should be doing, that is to say standing up for the nation’s poor and vulnerable and challenging where authority fails to do this.
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” – Matthew 19:24, although somehow it seems like our senior clergy have overlooked this when referring to the monarch!
November 25th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Actually, I do think inheritance is problematic too. It is inheritance that has the long-term effect of stratifying society. In most cases, personal inheritance makes little difference over short periods. However, substantial real inheritance, like inheriting a large family business or property changes lives. When inheritance makes substantial life changes it compounds power and influence. The hereditary principle of royalty is just the most substantial inheritance in this country. So, logically, I think Hitchens is right on inheritance, though wrong in wanting to defend all inheritance. However, there is an important qualitative difference between most personal inheritance and an inheritance that has substantial effect on a person’s life and power relationships.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:11 am
The problem with debating Peter Hitchens on this issue is that his arguments are those of a 12 year old. There are plenty of monarchists who can put up intelligent arguments in their favour (although I’d still disagree with them) but Hitchens is not one of them. So a debate would be somewhat pointless (no offence to 12 year olds).
Two classic Hitchens ‘points’ in this debate are: republicans want grey, drab eastern-european style republics that parade tanks down Whitehall; and being against inheritance of public office means being against inheritance of private property and wealth. It’s just name calling and deliberate twisting of the debate. He may as well tell us he doesn’t like democracy because he thinks people smell.
He also apparently has no understanding of the British constitution.
Hitchens doesn’t strike me as being particularly stupid, I imagine he’s actually fairly smart, but when it comes to the monarchy all sense leaves him. As they say, the monarchy makes otherwise intelligent people say some pretty stupid things.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Jennifer
“The God arguments sound silly to many religious people ….”
Just think how silly it must sound to we who are secularists. If Mr Hitchens truly believes that Mrs Windsor has been appointed by a god, he should provide a document saying so signed by the deity in question.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am
@Lewis
A debate between the Hitchens brothers would be great, but they don’t do it very often (the last time was at Hay I think and it took years to arrange).
@Gareth
You’re right. It’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned about inheritance in terms of social capital and the impact that has on social mobility etc. I’ve met libertarians and socialists, for example, who both support 100% inheritance tax. But Hitchens’ argument is spectacularly fallacious: you oppose the monarchy because it’s inherited therefore you oppose “the family”? What?!
November 25th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Liam, I’d prefer to be thought of as a Conservative monarchist-turned-republican. I am as much a Conservative now as I ever was, and I sincerely hope Mr Hitchens will show his face so I can present him with the overwhelming conservative arguments for a republic. My Republic, Conservative and Toon membership cards sit side-by-side in my wallet now!
November 25th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
My mistake. Shame, though (!) You a fully-paid up member of Republic now then?! If that miracle can happen then I’m sure the Boro can still get promoted!
November 25th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Hi Liam
Yes, I am a fully-paid-up member – not so sure about Boro though LMAO!
I wrote my last comment after glancing at yours in a rush, and hadn’t noticed James offering one major conservative argument for a republic:
Interestingly, those on the “old left” have often been the most fervent monarchists precisely because their aim was to take control of the state and steer it in the direction of socialism. The monarchy gave them the means to do so.
What’s more, I would add, the very idea of government being all-powerful and unaccountable as it is under the monarchy, and the people having no power beyond that of crossing a box every five years, is repugnant to modern conservatism. Ultimately, it boils down to the power of the individual over that of the state. My local Conservative candidate, of whose campaign team I’m a core member, is not a republican himself but he does find my constitutional views interesting and by no means objectionable.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Mathew Showering you are not a real conservative. At the core of conservatism is the belief in heirarchy, deference to established authority and the preservation of traditions and institutions for the purpose of stabilty and continuity. This is totally at odds with Republicanism.
The conserative party is no longer a truly conservative party; it is a liberal party with a liberal leader, and as such I will not be voting Tory at the next general election. I am also in the Bristol North constituency and I know it is a very tight marginal seat – one that Cameron must win in order to win the election. However I can not vote for a pro-european, anti-grammar school, pro-multiculturalist, pro-foregin wars of liberation – of which we have no place, anti-marriage, anti-law and order, pro-big state left winger. He is the self confessed “heir to blair”. Honestly, what difference is there between Cameron and Brown? There is no real choice in politics in this country anymore. You can choose one liberal or the other, the only differnce between them being one is prettier and more media savvy than the other. It’s about style not substance, that is the only reason Cameron is ahead in the polls. How can you possibly be still considering to vote for him after the Libson Treaty debacle? He could of offered us an ‘in or out’ referendum. But he didn’t. Why? Because He knows will vote ‘no’ and he doesn’t want that for one minitue because he is as pro-european as any other left wing politican.
All the Best
Lewis
November 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Lewis, where do I even begin?
At the core of conservatism is the belief in hierarchy, deference to established authority and the preservation of traditions and institutions for the purpose of stabilty and continuity. This is totally at odds with republicanism.
The face of conservatism may have changed over the years, but at its heart has always been the belief in individual enterprise. How can you possibly square that with a system which gives government absolute power and makes it completely unaccountable? What’s more, a republic based on popular sovereignty will arguably strengthen many of our traditional institutions: not only Parliament, but the judiciary, the police and the armed forces, to name but a few. More on this later.
The Conservative Party is no longer a truly conservative party; it is a liberal party with a liberal leader, and as such I will not be voting Tory at the next general election.
Vote UKIP if you must, and listen to Gordon Brown squealing with delight.
I am also in the Bristol North-West constituency…
What makes you think I’m in that constituency?
However I can not vote for a pro-european, anti-grammar school, pro-multiculturalist, pro-foreign wars of liberation – in which we have no place, anti-marriage, anti-law and order, pro-big state left winger.
WHAT?! Cameron – pro-multiculturalist, anti-marriage, anti-law-and-order and pro-big-state?! Like, what planet are you on LMAO?!
How can you possibly be still considering to vote for him after the Libson Treaty debacle? He could have offered us an ‘in or out’ referendum. But he didn’t. Why?
Because to unilaterally withdraw from the EU would be a very bad move indeed. But I have faith in Cameron’s ability to re-negotiate our relationship with Brussels, thus laying the ground for the sovereign people of the United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland to force a smoother withdrawal years from now.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
What an extraordinary claim. Have you tried that one on US conservatives? I think they may disagree.
What you’re talking about is feudalism and servility, not really a political tradition, more a state of mind.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
The word Conservatism derives from latin, meaning protect or preserve.
In order for Conservatism to work, thought is required to decide what is worth preserving and what we should do away with.
Like rotting wood, deciding to Conserve for Conservatism sake will make everything else rot.
That’s why we could do with more thoughtful Conservatives.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
You say that their are many able candidates for the position of head of state. But then fail to mention a single one. That in my mind is the seconded biggest problem you have Public opinion as to who this worthy or worthies might be. My choice would be my choice.
The most important problem in your senario is how would real worthies rise up to the public attention . Would it be a Simon Cowell type hype Presidential factor.
My guess is that your choice would be even more unsuitable than mine Nick Griffin. You see the problem surely.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Have we actually contacted Hitchens directly over this?
November 28th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Dear Mike, Back in this blog archives are a number of suggestions for possible future presidents. Most were serious ,but a few rather” tongue in cheek “, or even a bit facetious ,if not humorous,( “Legs” Lumley ,for example. ). The “Simon Cowell ” example shows us the type of person that we could do without, I think. Celebrityism is a modern media fuelled social disease that” clogs up the works”. All too often today ,celebrities are able to publish books,for example, and open doors ,poke their noses into all sorts of things which they are not just talented for. Being able to sing songs or take the p**** out of people on talent shows etc, is no criterion for political leadership.