Introduction
Britain is one of the leading democracies in the world today. However, monarchy is still a part of its political leadership structure several centuries after the Britons embraced rule by the people. According to Jones (2008), the position of the Queen as the head of state remains controversial as some people claim it is an anachronism while others argue that it is a proud tradition. Since the monarchy has lost major executive powers to the politically elected prime minister and the cabinet, many people still believe that the queen is still in power. The prime minister, as the head of government, is expected to consult the queen on important matters that concern the nation. The royal family is also symbolically seen as the head of the country’s military. Both critics and supporters of the British monarchy have strong arguments for or against its continued existence in modern society where the real power lies with the people through their democratically elected leaders. In this paper, the researcher seeks to determine if indeed monarchy is an anachronism in a democratic country such as Britain.
Discussion
In the United Kingdom, the monarchy has a very great history in terms of leadership. According to Brooker (2009), the royal family was once the imperial leader of the country, responsible for making an all-important decision about the state and government. However, the country has systematically embraced democracy where the prime minister has all the executive powers while the queen is still considered the head of state with some ceremonial duties. A section of the society believes that in the current democratic space in Britain, monarchy is an anachronism that should be completely abolished to save taxpayers money from unnecessary expenses. However, a great number of Britons still believe that monarchy still plays a very critical role in this country and should be allowed to continue for as long as it takes. It is important to look at these two arguments before coming up with a conclusion if indeed monarchy is an anachronism in Britain.
Monarchy as a proud tradition
According to Fraser (2014), monarchy is a proud tradition in Britain that cannot be easily abolished. The view of this scholar towards monarchy is supported by the majority of Britons who believe that the royal family has a special role to play in this country. These people say that those who are opposed to the existence of monarchy in the country have not taken time to understand its social, political, and economic importance. They have several factors to support their arguments in support of the monarch. The following are some of the factors that they give in support of the monarchy.
Monarchy is a symbol of continuity, stability, and ethics in the country’s leadership system. Political leaders come and go, but the monarch lasts for a very long time. Since assuming her throne, Queen Elizabeth II has worked with numerous prime ministers for the last sixty years. As new political leaders come to the office, the queen offers continuity in the leadership of the country, making it politically stable. She has been there for so long that she understands both the past and present very well. She offers critical advice to the political leaders as they come to power. The presence of the queen as the head of state instils a sense of responsibility and ethics among the political leaders. They are constantly aware that there is someone who has been in the leadership position in this country for so long that they understand all the government dynamics. If they try to go astray, they are aware that someone will notice it and bring them back to the responsible leadership path. That is why cases like mega corruptions and grafts have not been common in this country (Bentley & Wilsdon 2012).
Monarchy is a politically impartial institution that is not affected by political forces. Sigel (2009) says that politically elected leaders always have their allegiance to their political parties that assured them of the office. For that reason, such leaders will always be biased when it comes to addressing issues on party lines. However, this is not the case when it comes to monarchy. They are not put into position by any political group. Therefore, the fear that they might be ejected from the office is not there. It means that whenever the political leaders are tempted to govern the country based on selfish party interests, the queen is always there to make them see the sense of being impartial as leaders. As such, she protects the interest of the minority in the country.
The queen is a true symbol of unity in the nation because she is not affiliated with any political parties. According to Wagg (2013), politics always divides a nation into different groups. Such balkanisations may be dangerous to the stability of the country. For example, David Cameron is a Conservative. Although his allegiance is to the people of the United Kingdom, he might be more inclined to serve the interests of the people of his party. A section of the society who are members of the Labour Party may not consider him a true symbol of unity in this nation. It is a good thing that he is not the head of state. People who believe in his party and those who do not believe in it have the queen as their symbol of national unity. This is very important for the stability of the nation. It eliminates the concept of the winner has it all that is very common in most of the democracies in the world, including the United States. In this British system, the losers still have hope that their interests may not be ignored as long as the queen is still the head of state. She is the truest representative of all people in the country, whether they form the minority or majority groups. A survey by Bernadus (2013) showed that over 72% of Britons still believe in monarchs and want it to continue.
The queen and royal family provide a globally-cherished image of ancient Britain which earns the country a special position in the world. Research by Olechnowicz (2007) revealed that the presence of the queen as the head of state in Britain has given the country a unique position in the global society. Every world leader wants to meet the Queen of the United Kingdom. She is not only a symbol of leadership in the country but also in the international arena. This gives this country a special global image. The prime minister, as a political leader, can have issues with other world leaders. However, the queen is still seen as a symbol of peace and unity. Many people still come to the country as a tourist to visit the royal family. All these factors give the country a unique political and economic position in the world.
Monarchy provides a very important link with Commonwealth nations as the queen is seen as its legitimate leader. The queen is still a very common symbol of attachment between the United Kingdom and so many other nations around the world. Great nations such as Australia and Canada still have the queen as a symbolic leader, creating a permanent tie among these countries. The close political ties between the United Kingdom and these countries promote mutually beneficial trade. Within the United Kingdom, the queen is still seen as the glue that sticks England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together. The society in this great country cherishes the monarchy and its emotional attachment with the monarchy. Bogdanor (2007) notes that attempts to pull Scotland away from the Kingdom were defeated due to several reasons, top of which was the desire to have the queen as their leader. These people have seen the consequences of having power hungry politicians as the head of state and government in so many countries around the world. They are comfortable having the queen at the top, even if her position is ceremonial. Blain and O’Donnell (2013) also note that Commonwealth is still a very powerful economic, political, and social organisation that benefits the United Kingdom in so many ways. The country sits at the helm of this important global organisation by the virtue of its head of state, the queen, being its legitimate leader. If the position of the queen is eliminated, the country shall automatically lose this prestigious position in this block of countries. There are chances that the Commonwealth may even lose its worth in absence of the monarch.
Monarchy as a ludicrous anachronism
The existence of monarchy in Britain has not been without criticism from a section of the society that believes it is a ludicrous anachronism. The opponents of this system have strongly argued for a complete abolishment of this system because they believe its time has long gone. In this section, the researcher will look at specific arguments pushed forward by the opponents of this leadership system.
In a democratic space, a hereditary leadership system has no place. According to Tiersky, Jones, and Genugten (2011), in modern democracies, the power lies with the people. Through democratically held elections, they get to choose who should rule them and for how long. The queen is the head of state. She receives other heads of state that comes to the country. This should not be the case in a democratic country. The position is so important that the holder should be elected by the people. The queen is not elected by the people. Anyone uncomfortable with her position can do nothing within the democratic space to eliminate her. Murphy (2013) says that it is ludicrous that the leaders of the West are criticising African leaders who want to cling to power for life because one of the leading Western democracies has a head of state that serves for her entire lifetime unless she makes a personal decision to leave her office. This makes her not very different from the African leaders who want to stay in power for their entire life. As long as the queen is still the head of state in the United Kingdom, Murphy (2013) says that the country lacks any moral authority to demand that African leaders should serve for a specific term limit. Similarly, countries such as the United States, France, and Germany should not force other life presidents from power as long as they are comfortable with the leadership of the Queen of the United Kingdom.
The prime minister of the United Kingdom has increasingly become powerful rendering the monarchy irrelevant. Over the years, the position of the prime minister has become very powerful in the country. Although the prime minister is expected to consult the queen over several issues, the United Kingdom has seen some imperial prime ministers such as Margret Thatcher who transformed the economy of the country. This powerful position of the prime minister leaves no space for the queen in the leadership system.
The monarchy spends millions of pounds every year for no specific roles that are of importance to the nation. The royal family is maintained by the taxpayers’ money. However, they have no specific roles in the leadership system that makes them justified to be taken care of by the state (Murphy 2013). The huge amounts of money used to maintain the royal family can be channelled to other developmental projects which are of great importance to the country.
Monarchy is a symbol of social class where the poor are segregated. Britain, just like in many other kingdoms around the world, had a caste societal system of the royals and the peasants. In the United Kingdom, the current royal family was at the top of the hierarchy. The peasants suffered a lot under this system, especially given the fact that those in the lower caste were not supposed to rise in ranks even if they were hardworking individuals. Such sad histories should be brought to an end in modern society where the worth of a person is determined by mental and physical capacities. The country has many people whose forefathers suffered a lot during this era. Since they may want to forget about such negative histories, the presence of the queen at the helm of the country’s leadership still stirs such sad events. Abolishing monarchy will be a sign that the country has abolished the caste system and all its forms.
Conclusion
The debate about whether or not the monarch is an anachronism in a modern democratic country such as Britain is still raging on. The proponent and opponents of this system have given their reasons why they believe that the system should or should not be abolished. A critical analysis of both sides of the divide shows that they have valid reasons. For instance, the argument that the position of the queen reminds this society of the sad past where the poor suffered at the hands of the rich is very valid. However, the arguments put forward by the proponents of this system are also legitimate. Monarchy not only promotes political stability, peace, and unity in the country, it gives the country a unique position in the world as head of Commonwealth nations. The country should be cautious before declaring it entirely unnecessary.
List of References
Bentley, T & Wilsdon, J 2012, Monarchies: What are king and queens for, Demos Publishers, London.
Bernadus, I 2013, Britannica Book of the Year 2013, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago.
Blain, N & O’Donnell, H 2013, Media, monarchy and power, Intellect, Bristol.
Bogdanor, V 2007, The monarchy and the constitution, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Brooker, P 2009, Non-Democratic Regimes: Second Edition, McMillan Publishers, London.
Fraser, A 2014, ‘False Hopes: Implied Rights and Popular Sovereignty in the Australian Constitution’, Sydney Law Review, vol. 16, no. 13, pp. 214-229.
Jones, J 2008, Negotiating change: The new politics of the Middle East, I.B. Tauris, London.
Murphy, P 2013, Monarchy and the end of empire: The House of Windsor, the British government, and the postwar Commonwealth, London, McMillan.
Olechnowicz, A 2007, The monarchy and the British nation, 1780 to the present, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sigel, R 2009, Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-ethnic Societies, Routledge, New York.
Tiersky, R, Jones, E & Genugten, S 2011, Europe today: A twenty-first century introduction, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
Wagg, S 2013, Come on Down: Popular Media Culture in Post-War Britain, McMillan, London.