As Rye’s town sergeant, I am required to swear an annual oath of allegiance to our monarch; as town crier, every cry ends with “God Save The King!”
As the coronation of King Charles III approaches, there has been growing discussion on social media and amongst protest groups arguing for the monarchy to be abolished and replaced with an elected head of state. There seems to be a perception that an hereditary, constitutional monarchy is somehow undemocratic. I believe the facts prove that this perception is wrong.
Every year, the Democracy Index is published, ranking every country in the world on how democratic and free that country is, based on a variety of factors. Seven out of the top ten “most democratic countries” in the 2022 Democracy Index are hereditary, constitutional monarchies. The “most democratic” country, Norway, is an hereditary, constitutional monarchy.
Republics with elected heads of state tend to be far further down the Index. Both America (which prides itself on being ‘democratic’) and France are not ranked as ‘full democracies’ at all – they are considered to be ‘flawed democracies’.
So why are countries with hereditary constitutional monarchies ranked as more democratic than republics, when intuition would suggest the opposite to be true? The answer is, quite simply, the deposition of power.
In a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK), the head of state has no real power, or only symbolic power. True power within the country is wielded by the House of Commons, which has 650 fully elected members, representing every corner of the country.
In a republic with an elected president, much executive power is wielded by just one person, the president (an elected president has to have personal power, otherwise how could he enact the policies which he offers during his electoral campaign?). In the majority of republics, the president is capable of over-ruling, or at least stalling, the elected parliament.
If the UK were to become a republic with an elected head of state, there would need to be a transfer of a significant chunk of executive power from the 650 elected members of the House of Commons, to just one person. How is that “more democratic”?
We have seen in recent months how easily the House of Commons can thwart or change a prime minister; the House even has the (rarely-used) power to change the monarch. However, it would not have the power to change an elected president, no matter how vile he might prove, because the president could claim a ‘mandate from the people’, through having been elected.
As we have seen throughout modern history, elected presidents as head of state can evolve into dictators, as they have power and no-one to answer to. This cannot happen in an hereditary constitutional monarchy, as the position of head of state is already occupied by a non-political, powerless (because unelected) monarch. The hereditary element – although seemingly “unfair and privileged” – guarantees that there is never a vacancy for head of state that a dictator could slip into, because the monarch’s heir is in position the second the monarch dies.
Therefore, although the system for appointing a head of state in a monarchy may, in itself, not be democratic, the very same system ensures that our country as a whole remains more democratically governed than a republic would be.
I’m aware that there are plenty of other arguments for or against retaining the monarchy; I’m sure the comments section below will be filled with plenty of “but what about – “; however, I hope I have demonstrated that the perception that it somehow makes Britain ‘undemocratic’ is the very reverse of the truth.
Image Credits: Buckingham Palace .
I agree with the viewpoints expressed in this homage to constitutional monarchy but would add that the overriding endorsement for me is that it is an individual who represents the people of this nation rather than a politically elected head who will, by definition, divide opinion. Moreover, it is a very cost effective way of having a ‘head of state’ since the £250 million cost of this Coronation is offset by the estimated £1.6 billion, independently assessed, accruing from tourists from the 100 countries in attendance.
It is the sense that we don’t get to choose but have someone who represents the people rather than a political viewpoint that has helped other countries within the last 100 years to achieve restoration and reconstruction after a devastating conflict: Italy and Japan. As head of a militant fascist government, Mussolini took Italy down a path leading to national self-destruction and when the ‘people’ overthrew Mussolini in 1943 it was the King who served to unify a nation utterly disgusted with politicians and their factions.
When politics fails, a head of state can be a polarising force for reconstitution rather than another divisive individual representing the majority which, if decided by 51% can be in the role but with virtually half the nation disenfranchised. Heaven forbid that we ever face the destructive turbulence of Italy in 1943 but King Emmanuel III was a force for sanity allowing the Italian people to immediately rally to a national healing and they quickly turned to pledge allegiance to the allies two years before the end of the war.
So it was with Japan, when in 1945 the Emperor was allowed to remain as a unifying force leading a population disenfranchised by Tojo and his military/political leadership. Without either, Italy and Japan would not have rebuilt their countries with national support – a leader rather than an elected ‘yes-man’ chosen by conceivably only just over half the population. It is the reason today, in this country, the armed services swear allegiance to the monarch and not to a politician.
At a time when a large proportion of our population is unenthusiastic about politicians, our constitutional monarch is a unifying and binding figurehead for the ship of state.
Quite right and well put. I would add that the monarchy more than pays for itself as a tourist attraction, quite apart from the many charitable activities it undertakes. Someone complained that the coronation will cost the taxpayer £250m. I would say that that is good value for money and much better than the Olympic Games.
Further to Paul Goring’s excellent argument, I have a couple of other points to offer. Whilst a republic offers the chance to elect a Head of State, in practice it tends to be just another politician, chosen by the members of a political party. Elected politicians tend to have a view that extends as far as getting re-elected, and would generally say or offer anything to stay in power. The hereditary monarch can take a genuinely long view of the future and use their influence with a government, as Her Late Majesty did. The hereditary monarch has far more experience than any politician and is the only person that a prime minister can talk to, without feeling that the person they are talking to is after their job. Prime ministers, of all parties, are on record, saying that the opportunity to talk privately to one very experienced person is the best meeting that they have it a week. One even likened it to a session with a therapist.
One argument often used against having a monarchy is that a republic would be cheaper. In fact they aren’t. The president of France costs French taxpayers in excess of 100 million Euros a year. The president of America costs an eye-watering $750 million. Our monarchy is funded by the Sovereign Grant, which is a percentage of the income of the Crown Estate. The government, so the taxpayer, keeps in excess of £300 million of Crown Estate revenue.
I could go on indefinitely.
Michael, it’s easy to take pot shots at the USA these days. It is a country torn by political factionism that is tearing it apart. Worst of all, the US elected Donald Trump, a conceited demagogue and would-be tyrant who has left an indelible stain on the reputation of the American political journey.
But your cost figure is something of a mystery. You refer to an “eye-watering $750 million. ” Not sure where this specious figure comes from. Until 2001 the US President was paid a sum (dictated by Constitutional limits,) of $200 for the 30 years prior to 2001, at which time the figure jumped to $400,000. A nice paycheck, but nothing close to $750 million.
Perhaps you are referring to the costs of the election process? Several decades ago the US Supreme Court pronounced that PACs (political action groups) had the same rights as common citizens to contribute to the candidates of their choice. This opened the flood gates to what could easily be called obscene attempts to buy the president by allowing corporations and billionaires alike to contribute hundreds of millions to promote this political brand or that. I believe that the costs of these battles every four years (and in between) easily exceed billions, not millions. But those are election costs…not compensation paid to the president.
As an American I don’t have any basis for evaluating the merits of an elected head of state in the UK. That is the privilege and birthright of your citizens, to determine the future of your children and your children’s children. Neither of our two esteemed countries seem especially pleased with the direction things are proceeding, I would simply caution that drawing upon questionable, and sensational financial figures to support an argument for a particular type of national executive detracts from the discussion.
Perhaps someday we can continue this conversation over a well pulled pint at the Rye Waterworks Pub. (Shameless plug, yes, but the sentiment is no less heartfelt and sincere.)
Correction: The US president was paid $200,000 a year for 30 years prior to 2001.
Interesting arguments re monarch or head of state. And no doubt the day will give pleasure to many people and brighten their life, away from trying to work out how to make ends meet. However I resent my taxes paying for a one day pomp , which apparenly is the case, instead of the royals paying with their own riches .
The billions they are supposedly bringing in, I doubt will help the nurses, workers in shops, dustmen, carers, people who keep up the everyday running of this country. Maybe they should get a gift of double wages for that particular day from these billions.
Yes Norway has a monarchy but have a much more low key life style than here.
A couple of points to add to Heidi Foster’s comment. Yes, the Norwegian monarchy is lower key than ours, but still costs their taxpayers the equivalent of £40 million a year. Annually our monarchy doesn’t really cost our taxpayers anything – as I pointed out earlier, we benefit to some £300 million a year from the Crown Estate.
As for The King paying for the coronation. Why should he pay to be inducted into his job? All Heads of State have their inauguration paid for by taxpayers. One ceremony for an American president costs enough to run our monarchy for five years. The Guardian very maliciously ran a story a week or so ago, claiming that The King inherited more than a billion pounds from The Late Queen. It isn’t often that Buckingham Palace responds to nonsense stories like that, but this time they did, taking them to task for their inaccurate and biased reporting. As usual with the ignorant, they were taking into account assets that belong to The Crown, not The King. It is generally accepted that The Late Queen’s estate was valued at between £4 – 500 million. Still a vast sum of money, but nothing compared to the likes of Richard Branson or Alan Sugar, who aren’t attacked for their private funds. Unfortunately we seem to have become a nation of envy.
Most discussions of this sort ignore/forget the “elephant in the room” by assuming that “democracy” (not definable) is the best way of running a country. As Churchill pointed out, it is, at best the “least bad”, and that was only his personal opinion.
Democracy or not, how you select your Head of State is a separate question. I prefer our model of monarchy to that of the USA, where the patently unworthy can elbow their way in. We consent to an almost random selection method (the chance of birth) and then put up with what we get.
Our King has been one of the best Princes of Wales this country has had. If you disagree, check the track record. It is almost uniformly dreadful. For me, the biggest threat to our monarchy is all this ballyhoo surrounding the coronation, which is no more than a church service to consecrate the monarch’s person. The authorities want to take the chance to give the people “bread and circuses” (using the people’s money) and the media want to sell their products. I am pretty well monarchist in my views, and actually pretty happy with much of our ceremonial, but this is all a bit over the top, and is irrelevant to the constitutional questions.
I really appreciated Paul’s points, and agree with them.
As a Brit living in America, I would like to add that the cost to the American public of the American presidency is the enormous cost of protecting the president, his family and many members of both houses and the judiciary.
It is a big responsibility that our new King has to continue to make our monarchy seem relative in the 21st Century.
I’d like to add some balance and challenge some of this article’s assumptions. Monarchists like Paul may swear an oath of allegiance, but many Britons will not be swearing today’s astonishing ‘Homage of the People’ dreamed up by goodness knows who, presumably green-lighted by the King. Inexplicably, Jonathan Dimbleby, a friend of Charles, claims the King himself wouldn’t want citizens to pay allegiance to him. It’s the modern equivalent of forelock-tugging, some would argue.
So long as the majority of a nation’s population want it, a constitutional monarchy is not undemocratic. Latest stats indicate 58% of UK support the monarchy, which is fine. However, the support trend is downward. The fact that ‘7 out of 10 most democratic countries’ have monarchies has more to do with the fact that Scandinavian/Nordic countries, which are highly democratic, happen to have histories where monarchies have survived in a very low-key, slimmed down fashion. The Scandi royals are entirely different to the British monarchy. I could name plenty of other countries with monarchies where there is an appalling record of democracy, freedom and human rights.
When Boris Johnson sought to prorogue Parliament in 2019, an act declared unlawful by the Supreme Court, the Queen was powerless to stop him, an example of the failure of a constitutional monarchy to provide a check on the misuse of power. We have seen in the UK other cases of PMs seeking to use executive power to achieve their aims without the approval of Parliament. The current bloated British system of government is in urgent need of reform. The massive, unelected 778-strong House of Lords needs to be reduced to a body of 100 fully elected members and the House of Commons could easily be slimmed down to a more manageable number of members, perhaps around 400. Our current body politic is in danger of imploding like a red giant star under its own weight.
Paul is entirely wrong with his assumptions about presidents. In a republic, it’s perfectly possible for a president to be symbolic and to have very little power. Good examples are modern Ireland and Italy. Presidents could be elected on their good character and career track records rather than political affiliations. Who wouldn’t vote for President Attenborough? There is no reason to assume that a future UK president would necessarily enjoy vast executive power. A written constitution would dictate the division of responsibilities. In British history, there have been plenty of bad, mad or despotic monarchs, including King John, Henry VIII and George III. Edward VIII was unfortunately known to be a Nazi sympathiser.
The ‘unfair and privileged’ hereditary succession of monarchs is not merely a perception: it’s a reality. Royalty is not a meritocracy, we’re not guaranteed the great and good. The problem as I see it is that monarchy — with its privilege, great wealth, elitism and sense of entitlement — sends entirely the wrong message about democracy and fairness in modern society. For one of the above comments to suggest that the late Queen’s personal fortune was only £400m-£500m is laughable. That was her loose change. The Sovereign Grant currently stands at £86m a year. In my view, a slimmed down monarchy, with most of the palaces held by the Crown returned to the state, would be a move in the right direction if the UK monarchy is to survive. Once public support for monarchy falls below 50%, then the real problems begin. I have different views to monarchists but I sincerely wish King Charles the best of luck in his reign.
Sorry, but you, like many, seem to be confusing public and private funds. The Sovereign Grant is the money used to run the monarchy. It isn’t going into the private funds. I wish this was made more obvious in the media.
Hi Rob
Certainly not taking a shot at America. I have many American friends and have happy memories of time spent there – even in Connecticut in January. I was referring to the annual costs of running the presidency as a whole, not just the presidential salary, and using them as a comparison to the costs of our monarchy. The figures came from the information service of your London embassy. I guess they should know. As a professional writer for more than 20 years, accuracy is essential. That’s why I don’t rely on the internet.
Cheers to a drink.
I can’t assess the accuracy of the US Embassy in London, except to say that it is difficult to draw a line between the Office of the President and the executive branch, which he is the constitutional “leader” of. As such, all employees in the US federal government roll up under his authority, including the FBI, the Post Office, The Intelligence departments, the Justice System (excluding judges and federal magistrates) the Treasury dept, and all members of the armed forces. So I imagine the “Office” includes a vast horde of assistants, secretaries, writers, travel agents, drivers, go-fers, analysts, social media wonks, etc., including the pilots of the presidential jets, helicopters, and white house staff (cooks, room service, gardeners, etc.) But given the price of things to day and the cost of staff, maybe that figure isn’t so outrageous after all. Cheers!