Following the death of the Queen of England, there have been arguments that the monarch should be abolished. The editorial by Alaeddini (2022) takes the view that before taking the radical decision of abolishing the system, there is a need to change it to ensure that it reflects the current socio-political and economic environment in the United Kingdom. The author agrees that the changes that have been witnessed in the political landscape require a radical change in the country’s leadership. However, they are of the opinion that the change should not involve complete abolishing of the monarchy.
The point of view presented by the editor is that monarchy has a strong cultural symbol not only in the United States but many other nations around the world that still embrace it. This is a conservative position that seeks to retain the political system that has remained in place for several centuries. My personal perspective is that monarch should not be completely abolished. The tradition has defined the political environment in the United Kingdom. Changes have been made to ensure that the real political power in the country lies with the Prime Minister and the parliament. The current position of the king is largely ceremonial, which means that the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations that recognize the leadership of the monarch allow their citizens to directly elect their leaders. My perspective align with social work values in reference to culture. Sometimes retaining one’s culture is the truest way of maintaining identity.
The conservative arguments presented above are contradicted by the liberal views presented by the Pitt News Editorial Board in an article published on September 8, 2022. The editors were direct on their view about the monarch. They stated that it was time to completely abolish monarchy because it had served its purpose and was no longer necessary (The Pitt News Editorial Board, 2022). They pointed out the high cost of maintaining the royal family as one of the reasons why this form of governance needs to be abolished. They reported that the system is no longer effective and that King Charles currently lacks any major political relevance. They also cited the recent intrigues in the royal family that involved Prince Harry and his wife Meghan on the one hand, and the royal family on the other.
Their point of view is that if the monarch has failed to embrace diversity within its ranks, then it lacks the moral authority to promote diversity within the society. In fact, it entrenches retrogressive beliefs where people of a given race were considered inferior. The fact that they feel this institution has failed to promote diversity explains why they have embraced the liberal approach. Their views are considered liberal because of their idea of completely eliminating this system and instead, improving the system where people directly elect their leaders as opposed to this hereditary approach. Although I agree with some of the arguments presented in this editorial, I believe that monarchy should be redefined instead of being eliminated. Taking into consideration social work values, monarchy provides stability in the country’s leadership. Over the recent past, cases have been witnessed where prime ministers do not last long in office. However, the presence of the queen, and now the king, has been providing political stability in the country.
References
Alaeddini, A. (2022) Op-ed: It’s time to change the British monarchy or completely abolish it. The Washington News. Web.
The Pitt News Editorial Board. (2022). The monarchy should go. The Pitt News. Web.