They are often a hapless bunch, but broadly the people of the United Kingdom support them. The British Monarchy is an institution that has existed for most of this country’s history and yet a minority argue that it is an anachronism, clashing with modernity’s desire for an end to class. Although there are issues to be addressed such as how much money goes to the Royal Family or whether Charles has been interfering in the construction of a building, the monarchy is largely an impartial and politically neutral entity which can unite the people.
In a time of much politician-hating it cannot be said that any one party or person holds the allegiance of most or even a lot of the country. It is difficult for those who do not care for a Prime Minister Cameron to smile happily as he opens their hospital, or visits their military base. If a politician was the head of state this would only breed disunity and a discomfort with who represents our country. The Queen and the Monarchy has a majority support in the population. In a 2007 poll as many as 78% of the population support them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162649.stm). This is an incredible level of popularity and shows a rare satisfaction with a national institution. If we want to get rid of something so popular we really need to have good reasons.
A republican may point out that the head of state need not be a politician but could be elected by the people. Anyone could stand and it would be a purely symbolic role bereft of political responsibility. Thus we might get a King Stephen Fry or a Queen Helen Mirren; the possibilities are endless and wondrous. However one of the benefits of the monarchy is that the Queen is a sign of stability. If we had regular elections then we would lose this long-term connection with our symbolic representative. The monarchy brings a continuity between past and present – as governments rise and fall it will always be there either in the form of one person or in the form of a family. Also, elections for a head of state could become a popularity contest which sucks away the dignity of the office – would we really be happy with Queen Katie Price or King Wagner? Furthermore if the Queen is already popular and people want her as head of the state then what need is there to have elections.
Does having a monarchy harm us in anyway? If the monarchy was demonstrably causing problems for us as a country; maybe if it was a too obvious example of class distinctions and this was preventing a meritocratic society functioning. The class system needs to be broken up and it would be great to see higher inheritance and land taxes for unearned wealth, however nobody is seriously arguing for a total removal of the heritage that aristocratic families have built up in property and status. We can try to ameliorate this inequality, but we cannot destroy it. The Queen should pay more in taxes and should increase opening of her palaces however I don’t see why this cannot be done with the monarchy still existing. The family can become normalised but still take on public roles if they wish.
We should be happy with the monarchy, because it is an actively politically neutral institution which we can rally around, most people are happy with it and it is a stable sign of continuity with our past. It provides stable flows of finance to numerous charities such as the Prince's Trust, and in our society, even if a Presidency were to be established by republican movements, then there would be great room for the Monarchy to continue as a social establishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment