Republicanism in the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Republicanism in the United Kingdom is a movement in the United Kingdom which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary head of state. The method with which such a head of state should be chosen is not agreed upon, with some favouring an elected president, while others would support an appointed figurehead and others still support the idea of leaving the political system as it is with the absence of the monarch. There is however general agreement among British republicans that the choice of what sort of republic the UK has should be left to the people.
Contents |
[edit] Context
Within the United Kingdom, republican sentiment has largely focused on the retention or abolition of the British monarch, rather than the dissolution of the British Union or independence for the constituent countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, the term "republican" is usually used in the sense of Irish republicanism. While also against monarchical forms of government, Irish republicans are against the presence of the British state in any form in Ireland. They advocate the creation of a united Irish Republic, as opposed to the existing Republic of Ireland, which does not include Northern Ireland.
Similarly, there are republican members of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Saor Alba in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales, who advocate independence for those countries as republics. The SNP's official policy is that the British monarch would remain head of state in an independent Scotland, unless and until the people of Scotland were to decide otherwise.
[edit] History
[edit] Cromwellian republic
The countries which eventually comprised the United Kingdom were briefly ruled as a republic in the 17th century under Oliver Cromwell. First England (including Wales) was declared to be the Commonwealth of England and then Scotland and Ireland were forced in to union with England by the army.
Many of Cromwell's actions upon gaining power were decried by a number of commentators as "harsh, unwise, and tyrannical". He was often ruthless in putting down the mutinies which occurred within his own army towards the end of the war (prompted by Parliament's failure to pay the troops). Cromwell showed little sympathy for the Levellers, an egalitarian movement which had contributed greatly to Parliament's cause. The Leveller point of view had been strongly represented in the Putney Debates, held between the various factions of the Army in 1647, just prior to the King's escape. Cromwell and the Grandees were not prepared to countenance such a radical democracy. Catholics were persecuted zealously under Cromwell, leading to much death and chaos in Ireland. There was a ban on many forms of entertainment; the maypoles were famously cut down, the theatres were closed, and Christmas celebrations were outlawed for being too ceremonial, Catholic, and "popish." When Charles II regained the throne, he was widely celebrated for allowing his subjects to have "fun" again.
Much of Cromwell's power was due to the Rump Parliament, a Parliament purged of opposition to grandees in the New Model Army. Whereas Charles I had been in part restrained by a Parliament that would not always do as he wished, Cromwell was able to wield much more power as only loyalists were allowed to become MPs, turning the chamber into a rubber-stamping process. This was ironic given his complaints about Charles I acting without heeding the "wishes" of the people.
In 1657, Cromwell was offered the crown by Parliament, presenting him with a dilemma, since he had played a great role in abolishing the monarchy. After two months of deliberation, he rejected the offer. Instead, he was ceremonially re-installed as "Lord Protector" (with greater powers than he had previously held). The office of Lord Protector was officially not supposed to be hereditary, though Cromwell was able to nominate his own successor.
[edit] Restoration of the monarchy
Although England became a constitutional monarchy, after the restoration of Charles II and Glorious Revolution of 1689; there have been movements throughout the last few centuries whose aims were to remove the monarchy and establish a republican system. A notable period was the time in the late 18th century and early 19th century when many Radicals were openly republican.
During the later years of Queen Victoria's reign, there was considerable criticism of her decision to withdraw from public life following the death of her husband, Prince Albert. However this did not translate into clear support for republicanism. Most of the criticism was dismissed when she came out of mourning and returned to public life.
[edit] Prohibition of republican advocacy
Parliament in 1848 passed the Treason Felony Act. This act made violation of the law punishable by lifetime imprisonment, even if such advocacy were by peaceful means. The law remains on the books. [1]
[edit] 21st century
The monarchy is still largely popular in the UK, though a sizeable minority of the British public is opposed to it. Opinion polls in the recent past have put support for an elected head of state at between 15 to 25 per cent, with the most recent MORI poll in 2006 showing support for a republic at 18 per cent [1].
The Guardian newspaper approached the Attorney General in 2001, inquiring as to whether it would be prosecuted if it ran articles on the topic of whether British voters would have the right to chose a republic. In 2003 the House of Lords halted the Guardian's challenge to the Treason Felony Act of 1848. [2]
The Fabian Society published a report in July 2003 giving a number of recommendations for reform of the monarchy, but they did not argue for its abolition.
[edit] Supporters
[edit] Lobby groups
The largest lobby group in favour of republicanism in the United Kingdom is the Republic campaign group, founded in 1983. The group has benefited from recent negative publicity about the Royal Family, and Republic has reported a large rise in membership since the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. In June 2006 the group handed in a petition of over 3,000 names to 10 Downing Street calling for a serious national debate about the future of the monarchy.
[edit] Political parties
At present, none of the three major British political parties have an official policy of republicanism. However, there are individual MPs, usually from the Labour Party, who favour an abolition of the monarchy. These include Tony Benn, who in 1991 introduced a Commonwealth of Britain Bill in Parliament; Roy Hattersley; Leanne Wood (A Plaid Cymru Welsh Assembly Member) and Norman Baker MP (a Liberal Democrat).
Outside Parliament, well-known contemporary republicans include journalist and author Claire Rayner; actress Honor Blackman; author Benjamin Zephaniah; and Michael Mansfield, QC.
The Scottish Socialist Party advocates Scottish republicanism, organising the republican rally at Calton Hill on the official opening of Holyrood by the Queen.
[edit] Arguments in favour of a republic
[edit] The benefits of a republic
The republicans stress that they are proud of the liberal, democratic ideals of the constitutional monarchy today and Britain's role in shaping those ideals. However, they feel that a republic is the next logical step. [2] They assert that the British people will excel within a non-hereditary democratic and open system for selecting the head of the executive branch of government as well as the head of state.
"The new office of President would represent a new political culture - social inclusiveness would replace social hierarchy, mutual respect would replace deference, genuine intellect would replace the spurious wisdom of princes. Pompous titles, counterfeit 'generals' and royal chancellors of universities would be consigned to history. The current system of honours would be simplified and modernised and based only on merit." [3]
Such a system, argue republicans, would advance the egalitarian cause of meritocracy, and create a political consciousness less connected with social class or birth. Every child growing up in a British republic, from whatever background, would know from an early age that they too could aspire one day to becoming Head of State themselves. [4]
[edit] Arguments against Monarchy
Republicans generally argue that hereditary monarchy is the ultimate symbol of unfairness and elitism. In a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. Such a system does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a modern nation. Maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.
Further, republicans argue that 'the people', should be sovereign, not the offspring of one family retained at public expense to occupy the top job in a state system, permanently.
- Monarchy denies the people a basic right
Republicans argue that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their Head of State, and that such a Head of State is more accountable to the people.
- Monarchy devalues a parliamentary system
Ceremonial parliamentary events can include a mass of obsolete customs and out of date procedures to enhance the appearance of legitimacy. Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability.
- Hereditary monarchy is discriminatory
The monarchs themselves can only represent a single race by their simple existence.
- A monarchy demands deference
It is argued by Republicans that the very way citizens are required to address a royal family, even the most junior members, is part of an attempt to keep subjects 'in their place'.
- It is the enemy of merit and aspiration
The order of succession in a monarchy dictates that only a few people have the capability of being the Head of State. Republicans argue that this is anathema to meritocracy, and promotes aristocracy. They argue that the vast majority of common people, not being members of the aristocracy, are discouraged. It is difficult to factually support the argument that the common people are more discouraged in a monarchy than in a republic.
- It devalues intellect and achievement
Republicans argue that Royals bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK might include the Queen's many honorary military titles of colonel-in-chief.[5] The Queen's sole military experience, though honorable and bold for its day, was as a driver and a mechanic.[6]
- It harms the monarchs themselves
Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood that produces an abnormal individual as Head of State. History has produced several arguably abnormal monarchs.
- Monarchs are not impartial, but may lack accountability
Republicans would argue that Monarchs are not impartial but harbor their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests just as we all do. Rather than feeling comforted that monarchs are impartial by their freedom from election, Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, though he has clarified that he will avoid "politically contentions" issues, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken or acted in a way that could be interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a State Dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese Head of State; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of certain memos regarding how people achieve their positions which were leaked to the press.[7][8][9] Monarchists, however, point out that Charles should not be held to the same rules of impartiality as a Monarch as he has not yet assumed that role, as there is no formal, historical or parliament-approved role for the Prince of Wales, and thus he remains simply an individual subject of the Crown.[10]
While monarchists tend to feel that an impartial advantage is gained by various aspects of the civil service reporting into the Crown, (see example of police below), republicans see a lack of important democratic accountability and transparency for such institutions.
- The Monarchy is expensive
Republicans argue that the total the hidden costs added the monarchy in fact lands the taxpayer with a bill of over £100 million. Furthermore, they challenge the crown in their use of every child, infant and pensioner when dividing the cost amongst taxpayers.[11]
 |
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
[edit] Arguments in favour of an elected monarchy
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details. |
A false dichotomy is created when we reason that things must be either all this way or all that way. Often a middle of the road alternative is also available. Those who argue for an elected monarchy are arguing for just such a milder alternative to what could be a destructive extreme of republicanism.
- An Elected Head of State
An elected monarchy would place a husband and wife team into office that the people chose, for a limited period, rather than the hereditary system of present.
- A King and Queen
It would be an office similar to a President who "presides" over a country, but preserve the dignity and style of an ancient monarchy with both King and Queen in partnership. The American President is in many ways an elected monarch, whose powers are theoretically limited by two other co-equal branches of government. An elected King and Queen would not necessarily have the same powers of a U. S. President, but continue with the more limited and ceremonial powers of a modern British monarch.
- Avoiding the Awkward Duke Syndrome
Nobody can be elected to the office of King and Queen unless they fulfil certain criteria. One of those criteria would avoid the awkward situation where a Duke plays second fiddle to his royal wife, simply because he is not a native son. Both husband and wife would have to be able to fulfil the office by being native-born citizens.
- Other Qualifications
A weak king who embarrasses everyone can become our next monarch simply because he was born. That is a sad state of affairs and one of the weaknesses of a royal birthright. An elected King and Queen could fulfil certain qualifications, such as setting a high standard in their marriage (i. e. only one marriage), a long and successful marriage (e. g. over 40 years), a certain age which normally brings wisdom (e. g. over 50 years old), a certain example set in the community, they must be Christian, they must be well educated, etc.
- A Middle Road
A complete revolution often destroys more than it builds. However, a middle of the road, elected monarchy would provide for a continuation of a royal history dating back thousands of years, which as it happens had its roots in the elected monarch of Anglo-Saxon England albeit an elected monarchy through the Witan, a forerunner of the modern Parliament. It would provide continuation without the destruction that a complete dismantling would accomplish. It could simply be yet another change of royal dynasty, but this time to a dynasty of elected monarchy which is not inherited.
- A Deserved Office of King and Queen
There are married couples in the land, who have lived an exemplary and successful married life for 40 years plus, who are known for their genuine service to humanity, their qualifications in leadership, their balance and wisdom. The whole country is embarrassed by a King or Queen who doesn't deserve the office and may be totally incompetent to fill it. An elected monarchy puts people who deserve to be elected into office as King and Queen for a limited period. They will represent their country for a limited five or ten years because they deserve to.
- Selfish Opulence is Minimized
Kings and Queens who lavish selfish opulence upon themselves, who own a large portion of the country without actually having earned it, are an embarrassment to the modern world. Most of such wealth is absolutely unnecessary and selfish. An elected King and Queen will have no need of such things, but live like a modern U. S. President in only one palace and possibly also a retreat, where foreign dignitaries can be entertained.
- Impressing Foreign Dignitaries can continue
Kings and Queens who are elected can still continue to impress foreign dignitaries by using the many lavish coaches, limousines and national treasures which have been collected over the centuries. These can continue to serve the country by being proudly displayed and put to use for the nation's good during ceremonial and diplomatic occasions. We don't need an outdated inherited monarchy to continue using national treasures for state purposes.
- Retiring the Old Monarchs with Dignity
By replacing the current monarchy with an elected monarchy, we can retire the current line of royals with dignity. They can gradually fade away without great personal trauma, just as all distant relatives of the current Kings and Queens of England have done. Their succeeding generations can gradually melt back into becoming productive members of normal society. We can thank them for their "service to their country" and gradually turn their excessively opulent mansions and palaces into useful buildings of various purposes that can serve the community at large.
[edit] Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy
- Provides an impartial arbiter
Monarchists argue that an impartial, symbolic Head of State is a step removed from political, commercial, and factional interests, allowing them to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between various levels of government and political parties, an especially indispensable feature in a federal system. The fact that this body holds all executive authority is seen as a bonus by monarchists, who state that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain. The analogy monarchists use is that the Crown is like a fire extinguisher: rarely used, but highly visible and there in case of emergencies. As Earl Russell put it in The Spectator in 1997: "The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing." Or, as Sir Michael Forsyth said in 1999: "The monarchy's most important constitutional function is simply to be there: by occupying the constitutional high ground, it denies access to more sinister forces; to a partisan or corrupt president, divisive of the nation; or even to a dictator. The Queen's powers are a vital safeguard of democracy and liberty." This view of the monarchy could have developed after Oliver Cromwell's Republic which eventually became a military dictatorship, there has been little desire since to attempt a republic since. Furthermore, monarchists assert that honor systems like the French Legion of Honor may not be as politically impartial as they feel that a monarch is.
- Provides a focal point for unity and tradition
Monarchists argue that a constitutional monarch with limited powers, and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president, who, due to the election process, would cause a relative amount of division between his or her supporters and detractors. However, the French Legion of Honor provides a clear example of an honors system directed by an elected head of state.
- Provides links with other states
Monarchs tend to be linked with the monarchs of other nations, or in the case of the Commonwealth Realms, one person is the Head of State separately for each nation.
- A separation from government duties (in figurehead monarchies)
Monarchists argue that separating the Head of State from the Head of Government (the Prime Minister), offers some advantages. But it is unclear if a system like that of France, wherein there is a separate president and prime minister would have the same advantage, it being possible that having both an elected president and prime minister could lead to the two coming to odds over who holds more authority; each could claim to be "elected by the people".
- Offers a bridge to non-governmental organizations
Monarchists argue that in a limited, constitutional monarchy the monarch is able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen etc. It is difficult to prove that the support of the Monarchy is politically impartial, but it is easily documented that monarchs have supported charitable causes and NGOs. Another legal example could be the role of the Police in the UK, where the Police are occupy of the Office of Constable that are there to protect the Queen's Peace. As a result, it effectively means they are servants of the Crown and not servants of the government. This allows them to be completely impartial of the government, thus separating the administration of justice from the government.
- Monarchies have staying power
Monarchists argue that Constitutional Monarchy creates a Head of State that is under the democratic control of Parliament but does not rotate and change on a short term basis. In the days of absolute monarchies however, there were certainly tumultuous periods with multiple monarchs. Perhaps the examples of Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey, and Queen Mary I would serve as an example of 3 monarchs in 11 years. However, modern Constitutional Monarchs, such as that in Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have had monarchs that have had many Prime Ministers, but only one Monarch during a 50 year span.
- No divisive elections
Constitutional Monarchists argue that where elections are not needed they are only divisive, and that the head of state need not be elected. This relates to the first argument that they are impartial and are figures of unity that people from all sides of the political spectrum can unite behind.
- The Royals are busy
The Royals in the United Kingdom have documented an extensive lists of duties and functions that they carry out.[12]
- The Royals are cost effective
The annual expenditure, since June 2005 has been a total of £36.7 Million [13] or approximately 61 pence per person. When compared to the relative size and the duties that the Royal Family perform, this is significantly more cost effective as their only job duties are the meeting of foreign dignitaries, attending events and ceremonial events, to which they devote all of their time. In most states with a presidential system , the duties are divided between political and ceremonial responsibilities resulting in less time for both.
Also, profits made on Crown Estates, lands belonging to the crown, totalling above £130 Million, far exceeds the total amount spent by the Royal Family.
- Tourism
When the topic of Britain is brought up in popular cultures around the world, particularly North America, the first images that come to mind are often Big Ben and "the Queen." Some of the biggest tourist attractions in Britain are the royal family and buildings that symbolize them: Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Tower of London (the Crown Jewels). For the relative low cost of the monarchy, the economic benefit due to increased tourism undoubtedly is positive.
[edit] Other considerations
[edit] Meritocracy vs Aristocracy
The heir to the throne, Prince Charles, has been criticized for publishing a memo on ambition and opportunity [14]. This memo was widely understood to criticize meritocracy for creating a competitive society, which republicans took as proof that the head aristocrat, and symbol of monarchy, was attacking meritocracy and the motivation of the common man towards greater achievement. In humorist Lynn Truss's critique of British manners entitled "Talk to the hand"[15], Charles's memo is evaluated with respect to the putative impact of meritocracy on British boorishness. Truss came to the conclusion that the prince might have a point, that the positive motivational impact of meritocracy might be balanced against the negative impact of a competitive society.
[edit] See also
- Republic
- Commonwealth Realm
- Commonwealth Republic
- Constitution of the United Kingdom
- Constitutional Monarchy
- Elective Monarchy
- Golden Jubilee
- International Monarchist League
- Republic, The Campaign for an Elected Head of State
- Republicanism in Australia
- Republicanism in Canada
[edit] External links
- Republic
- Centre for Citizenship
- Movement Against the Monarchy
- Throne Out
- International Monarchist League
- Monarchy Wales
- British Republic Forum
[edit] References and further reading
- ^ Ipsos/MORI Poll
- ^ Republic Policy sheet: Benefits of a Republic
- ^ Republic statement
- ^ Republic's Benefits Statement
- ^ Queen Elizabeth II's Military titles
- ^ Queen Elizabeth II's military career
- ^ Tibet News Network: Charles furore grows with Tibet missive. Retrieved on 2006-09-01.
- ^ St James's Palace Defends Charles's Role
- ^ Assinder, Nick; BBC News: Royals dragged into Haider row; February 9, 2000
- ^ Prince Charles's Website
- ^ Republic Organization Challenges Queen's Finances
- ^ Wikipedia Royal Family Page
- ^ Monetary statistics
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4035181.stm
- ^ Carlton, Royce Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of the World Today, or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door. Gotham: November 8, 2005. ISBN 1-59240-171-6.
| Republicanism in Commonwealth Realms | |
|---|---|
| Australia | Canada | New Zealand | United Kingdom |
