Republicanism in the United Kingdom is the movement which seeks to remove the British monarchy and replace it with a republic that has a non-hereditary head of state. The method by which the head of state should be chosen is not agreed upon, with some favouring an elected president, some an appointed head of state with little power, and others supporting the idea of leaving the political system as it is but without a monarch.
Contents |
Within Great Britain republican sentiment has largely focused on the abolition of the British monarch, rather than the dissolution of the British Union or independence for its constituent countries.
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 and advocate creating a united, all-island state. While this may be confusing, unionists who support a British republic also exist.
There are republican members of the Scottish National Party (SNP) 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 of an independent Scotland, unless the people of Scotland decided otherwise. Plaid Cymru have a similar view for Wales.
The countries that now make up the United Kingdom, together with the present Republic of Ireland, were briefly ruled as a republic in the 17th century, first under the Commonwealth consisting of the Rump Parliament and the Council of State, (1649–53) and then under the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell (1653–58). The Commonwealth Parliament represented itself as a Republic on the classical model, with John Milton writing Latin justifications for use as propaganda on Continental Europe. Cromwell's Protectorate was less ideologically republican and was seen by Cromwell as restoring the mixed constitution of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy found in classical literature and English common law discourse.
First the Kingdom of England was declared to be the Commonwealth of England and then Scotland and Ireland were briefly forced in to union with England by the army. This decision was later reversed when the monarchy was restored in 1660. In 1707 the Act of Union between England and Scotland was signed; the two countries' parliaments became one, and in return Scotland was granted access to the English colonies.
Many of Cromwell's actions upon gaining power were decried as "harsh, unwise, and tyrannical". He and General Thomas Fairfax were often ruthless in putting down the mutinies which occurred within their own army towards the end of the civil wars (prompted by Parliament's failure to pay the troops). They showed little sympathy for the Levellers, an egalitarian movement which had contributed greatly to Parliament's cause but sought representation for ordinary citizens. 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 temporary escape from army custody. Cromwell and the Grandees were not prepared to permit such a radical democracy and used the debates to play for time while the future of the King was being determined. Catholics were persecuted zealously under Cromwell, although he personally was in favour of religious toleration "liberty for tender consciences" not all his compatriots agreed. The war led to much death and chaos in Ireland where Irish Catholics and Protestants who fought for the Royalists were persecuted. There was a ban on many forms of entertainment; as public meetings could be used as a cover for conspirators, horse racing was banned,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 eventually regained the throne,in 1660, 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,(the cause of the Civil War) Cromwell was able to wield much more power as only loyalists were allowed to become MPs, turning the chamber into a rubber-stamping organisation. This was ironic given his complaints about Charles I acting without heeding the "wishes" of the people. But even so he found it almost impossible to get his Parliaments to follow all his wishes. His executive decisions were often thwarted - most famously in the ending of the rule of the regional major generals appointed by himself.
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. It is often suggested that offering Cromwell the Crown was an effort to curb his power: as a King he would be obliged to honour agreements such as Magna Carta, but under the arrangement he had designed he had no such restraints. This allowed him to preserve and enhance his power and the army's while decreasing Parliament's control over him, probably to enable him to maintain a well-funded army which Parliament could not be depended upon to provide.
The office of Lord Protector was not formally hereditary, though Cromwell was able to nominate his own successor in his son, Richard.
Although England, Ireland and Scotland became constitutional monarchies, after the reigns of Charles II and his brother James II & VII, and with the ascension of William and Mary to the English, Irish and Scottish thrones as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, 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 such as the minister Joseph Fawcett were openly republican.[1]
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.
Some members of the Labour Party, such as Keir Hardie, also held republican views.[2]
Parliament passed the Treason Felony Act in 1848. This act made advocacy of republicanism punishable by transportation to Australia, later life imprisonment. The Law Lords ruled in 2003 that this law does not prohibit peaceful printed advocacy of anti-monarchy sentiments.[3]
The monarchy currently remains secure in the United Kingdom with MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showing support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 80% of people.[4] In 2005, during the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped slightly with one poll showing that only 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.[4] In 2009 an ICM poll, commission by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know.[5] In the wake of the 2009 MP's expenses scandal, a poll of readers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as a top priority.[6]
In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's death at 13%, if Prince Charles becomes King.[7] However, an ICM poll shortly before the royal wedding suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding.[8]
At present, none of the three major British political parties have an official policy of republicanism. However, there are a number of individual politicians who favour abolition of the monarchy. The individual politicians include Tony Benn formerly Viscount Stansgate) now retired from front line politics), who in 1991 introduced a Commonwealth of Britain Bill in Parliament; Roy Hattersley; Dennis Skinner; Leanne Wood (a Plaid Cymru member of the National Assembly for Wales) ; John Prescott ; Julian Huppert and Norman Baker (the latter two both being Liberal Democrat MPs).
The largest party with an official policy of republicanism is currently the Green Party of England and Wales, with one MP in the House of Commons.
The Scottish Socialist Party advocates the independence of Scotland as a republic, organising the republican rally at Calton Hill on the official opening of Holyrood by the Queen.
Outside Parliament, well-known contemporary republicans include Professor Richard Dawkins;[9] actress Honor Blackman;[9] writer Johann Hari;[9] film directors Paul Greengrass,[9] Mike Leigh[9] and Ken Loach;[9] authors Michael Rosen[9] and Benjamin Zephaniah;[9] and Michael Mansfield, QC.[9]
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. Since then Republic has lobbied on changes to the parliamentary oath of allegiance, royal finances and changes to the Freedom of Information Act relating to the monarchy, none of which have produced any change.
In 2009 Republic made news by reporting Prince Charles's architecture charity to the Charity Commission (the Commission declined to take the matter further) and has previously broken stories about royals using the Freedom of Information Act. The organisation is regularly called up to comment and provide quotes for the press, national and local radio and national TV programmes.
Republic is constituted as a limited company and run by its members, employing staff to carry out the day to day activities.
Republic's aim is "to mount a successful campaign to persuade a majority of voters to support the replacement of hereditary monarchy with a democratic republican constitution." It sees the abolition of the monarchy as the key reform needed to allow Britain to reform other areas of the constitution. It also has a policy in favour of a fully elected upper house to replace the House of Lords.
Republicans argue that republicanism is the next logical step toward a fully democratic constitution which answers a number of key issues.
Republic argue:
| “ | The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.
It does this is in a variety of ways:
|
” |
Republicans also want to see a constitution that they claim will inspire aspiration (by allowing anyone to become head of state) and political responsibility (by introducing popular sovereignty, the notion that the people are 'in charge'). They also claim that they want what's 'best for Britain', which includes the best democracy.[11]
A significant number of republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. Such a system, they assert, 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". Some claim that 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.[11]
Further, republicans argue that 'the people', not the members of one family, should be sovereign.[11]
By virtue of their narrow breeding mechanisms, most monarchs belong to a clearly identifiable ethnic group. Thus, members of other ethnic groups are forever denied a head of state they can directly relate to. This phenomenon produces divided societies where one ethnic group can, openly or discreetly, boast about their ethnic link to the royal family and derive from it a sense of superiority. In ethnically homogeneous countries, this has little effect. However in multi-ethnic countries, this can be become extremely divisive and the historical record of constitutional monarchy ability to maintain national unity, in the face of multi-ethnic tensions, is not good.
The British Royal Family has, until now, used male primogeniture, which has meant that the crown has been inherited by the eldest son, and has only passed on to a daughter if the monarch has had no sons. In October 2011 it was announced that succession laws in the UK and in other Commonwealth realms would be changed so that sons of any future monarch would no longer be preferred over daughters. However, this change has been described as "crass and absurd" because, despite being portrayed as greater equality, it does nothing to stop the discrimination "against any man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family".[13]
It is argued by republicans that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects 'in their place'.[14]
The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition". Although monarchists argue that the position of Prime Minister, the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become, the executive and symbolically powerful position of Head of State is not.
Republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include the Queen's many honorary military titles of colonel-in-chief, regardless of her military experience.[15] There is debate over the roles the members of the monarchy have played in the military, many doubt that members of the royal family took any part on the front line for any length of time, with the clear exceptions of Prince Andrew, who served as a line helicopter pilot in the Falklands War and was almost shot down [16] and Prince Harry, who fought in Afghanistan [17] It is seen to some as more of a PR exercise than military service. Members of the royal family are fast-tracked to higher ranks in the army.
Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.[18] A blogger, Terry A. Coully, takes Johann Hari's argument a step further. Coully argues that the cruelty to royal kids, in particular, can be an Achilles heel for monarchists. Coully suggests a way in which, by focussing on cruelty to kids, republicans can try to drive a wedge between the crown & the Church of England. Any split in that relationship would weaken the monarchy.
Republicans argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. Republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken and acted in ways that have widely been 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 which were leaked to the press regarding how people achieve their positions.[19][20][21]
Republicans see a lack of important democratic accountability and transparency for such institutions.
Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill) of the monarchy are over £100 million per annum.[22] The Daily Telegraph claims the monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year.[23] However, this figure does not take into account royal security, nor the money paid by regional councils to fund the costs of visits by members of the Royal Family, and assumes the "official" figure of £34m per annum to be divided between every man, woman and child in the land. Republic also argues that the Royal finances, which are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, are shrouded in secrecy and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Although monarchists argue that this does not take into account the 'hereditary revenues' which generated £190.8 million for the treasury in 2007-2008, republicans assert that the Crown Estate, from which these revenues are derived, is national and State property, and that the monarch cannot surrender what they have never owned.[24] The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4m, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland.[25] The argument that tourism benefits from the continued existence of the British monarchy is refuted by Republic, who suggest that the reverse may actually be true - if the palaces were open throughout the year, tourists would be better able to visit them (as has happened with the Tower of London)[26]
Republicans argue that the monarchy is to be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic, too reminiscent of medieval feudalism, and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.[27][28]
Some argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen. It is only undemocratic if the monarchy holds meaningful power, which it currently does not as government rests with Parliament.
Some argue that the Monarch's constitutional position (with the little-used power to dissolve or refuse a government) could safeguard against Britain ever becoming a dictatorship. Examples of this include the 1981 April Fool's Day Coup in Thailand and the El Tejerazo coup in Spain when King Bhumibol and King Juan Carlos I respectively stepped in to restore democracy in their countries.
The British constitutional system proscribes limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue [29] that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and [30] confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch's coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture [31] Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seziure and the right to protest. Removal of the monarchy would unravel this delicate framework of political checks and balances, tested and modified over centuries, which recognise rights of the individual British citizen which cannot be found in The European Convention on Human Rights nor in most other countries.
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 the monarch nominally holds all executive authority is seen as advantageous by monarchists, who state that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain. This view of the monarchy could have developed after Oliver Cromwell's Republic which eventually became a military dictatorship. Monarchists assert that honours systems like the French Legion of Honour may not be as politically impartial as they feel that a monarch is.
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 affiliated to a political party.[32]
Monarchists argue that having a long serving monarch would increase the sense of duty and continued stability of a nation as the monarch would not have to worry about staying in power or elections every few years and be solely focused on their duties. They would also be more familiar with their position as they would have had many years to prepare for it and they would meet more people and gain knowledge and respect throughout the world. The Queen is one of the most recognised people in the world whilst presidents and politicians are often forgotten after they leave office or are unheard of to other countries of the world whilst in office.
Monarchists argue that a figurehead detached from the government enables the UK to reach out and connect to other countries across the world because political ideology alone within a republic can isolate the country.
Monarchists argue that the monarchy is an impetus for significantly greater national income from tourism because many tourists come to the United Kingdom to see the palaces and other institutions such as the Coldstream Guards that are central to the monarchy.
Some argue that if there was a republic, the costs incured in regards to the duties of the head of state would remain more or less the same. This includes the upkeep and conservation of the royal palaces and buildings which would still have to be paid for as they belong to the nation as a whole rather than the monarch personally. On top of that, the head of state would require a salary and security, state visits, banquets and ceremonial duties would still go ahead. In 2009, the monarchy claimed to be costing each person an estimated 69 pence a year (not including "a hefty security bill"),[33][34][35] the overall official figure having been divided by approximately 60 million people, rather than by the number of British taxpayers.
Some argue that replacing the monarchy with a republic would not fundamentally solve the problems within society as the monarch at present does not hold meaningful power and therefore cannot force Parliament to do create change which would be the same position an elected head of state with the same powers as the current monarch has would have, unless the new head of state is given executive powers that are the same as the Prime Minister's.
Even though no modern republicans advocate a republic modelled on Cromwell's Protectorate, some [36] point out that a Republican Commonwealth of England, Ireland and Scotland has already been tried when Oliver Cromwell installed it on 30 January 1649. Yet by February 1657 some people [37] argued that Cromwell should assume the crown as it would stabilise the constitution, limit his powers and restore precedent. Cromwell declined. Within three years of his death the Republic had lost support and the monarchy was restored. Later, during The Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused partially by disillusionment with the absolutist rule of the Scottish James II of England (VII of Scotland), Parliament and others [38] argued that James had broken "the original contract" with the state. Far from pressing for a republic, which had been experienced within living memory, they instead argued that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy with explicitly circumscribed powers.
The heir-apparent to the throne, Prince Charles, has been criticised for writing a private memo on ambition and opportunity.[39] This memo was later leaked, and widely understood to criticise 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,[40] Charles's memo is evaluated with respect to the putative impact of meritocracy on British boorishness.
The British aristocratic system is not however entirely inherited. Honours and titles are bestowed by the monarch in recognition of service to the state (example: scientist Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield) thus demonstrating aspects of meritocracy within the monarchical model. In 1917, George V created the OBE (Order of the British Empire) to recognize services to the nation made by commoners (anyone who is not a Peer in their own right or the Sovereign.)
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||