MONARCHY VS. REPUBLIC
Despite the industrial revolution and the collapse of the British Empire, the UK remains a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as the unelected head of state. Whilst few people in secular Britain would now support the notion of a divine right to rule, many enjoy the celebrity, pomp and ceremony of the Royal Family; seeing it as part of a harmless British tradition, good for tourism and international trade, and a bulwark against political and social instability. Campaigners against the monarchy point out the more insidious anti-democratic aspects of having an unelected head of state, for instance the use of the ancient royal prerogative by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet to pass legislation and make decisions without having to consult elected representatives in parliament.
As an example, in the UK, the power to declare war lies with the executive rather than the legislature. The Prime Minister can exercise the royal prerogative to declare war without the approval of Parliament. In the case of the UK's commitment to take military action in Iraq, the Prime Minister did in fact obtain Parliamentary approval - although it was not strictly necessary. Indeed in 2008, the UN Human Rights Council published a report recommending that the Britain should consider holding a referendum on whether the monarch should remain the head of state. Others argue there is no public appetite for such an initiative and that Britain benefits from having a monarchy that stands apart from the `murky' process of electioneering and the potential ill-judgement of the electorate.
The view of Republic, an anti-monarchy group, is that 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:
The royal prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament
The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament
The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.
What do you think?
Is the Monarchy an anchor in a changing world or does it hold back progress?
Is the Monarchy a threat to democracy or are the kings and queens simply harmless figureheads?
What are the benefits of the Monarchy? Many say it is popular and good for tourism, but does this counter the disadvantages, the fact that the UK is not a true democracy.