Power only on Paper?
Britain's Monarchy
Samira Kuklinski
07/09/2020
Queen Elizabeth II has remained a “ rock in an age of change”, as described by David Starkey. Even though the assumption that the century old line of monarchs has become outdated in times of modern democracy seems to suggest itself, Britain does not deem it a necessity to resign their royal family.
Those who support the case against the monarchy view the inheritance of a public office as undemocratic and therefore call the hereditary monarchy to be incompatible with democracy and meritocracy.
Opponents of the monarchy also regard the Queen's considerable power to wage war, sign laws and opening and dissolving parliament as a possible threat to democracy, since sovereignty lies with the monarch and not the people.
Furthermore the country's image is seen as class-obsessed and old fashioned because they are still holding on to old traditions and do not have an elected head of state. In the point of view of a modern 21 st-century democracy this appears to be an antiquated system to govern the country with.
Whereas those who are against the monarchy claim that it is not intellectually justifiable, it is important to note that the majority attributes a stabilising role to the royal family.
In contrast to the previously mentioned belief, it has to be said that the monarch actually has no real power and it is highly unlikely they would make use of this theoretical power, since the monarch's actions are closely regarded by the government.
As opposed to Britain having a snooty reputation, I definitely believe that in other republic nations there is elitism and a class system, as well. Hence whether a county is meritocratic and egalitarian or not, does not stand in connection with its form of political rule.
Another argument for the case of the crown is that under the Britons there seems to be an united love for the monarchy, same as dislike for the politicians. In a yougov.com poll 68% voted that they think the monarchy of Britain is good, whilst on the other hand only 9% voted it is bad, this underlines that the monarch poses as a well liked government institution.
Building a new democracy from scratch would be nearly impossible for Britain, because there is no specific historic event supporting this change. Besides the British democracy already has grown up entangled with the monarchy, so there is no reason for change.
As far as I am concerned I do not see a need to dissolve the monarchy. The royal family is a constant institution for the Britons, offering them a form of close to the people support and hold. In comparison politicians seem unimpressive, even though they have more power.
Looking at the two sides, I would nevertheless like to point out that nowadays the leader of the majority party holds most of the legislature power that once belonged to the monarch.
This unbalanced distribution of power could be evened by looking at the example of Belgium: By taking an oath to uphold their constitution, the monarch rules over the people, not the territory making sovereignty rest in the people.
In conclusion most Britons believe that the monarchy forms a possible backstop against Parliament and therefore the country has a lack of control on its own government. Though in the end the power and choice of reforming the monarchy and the political system lies with the people. This is a reform that the British monarchy clearly needs, the Queen as the guardian of power and not the source of it.