England does not need a hereditary monarch for its government to work. But the royal monarchy was first established in 871 with King Alfred the Great, and traditions like that are hard to leave behind, even in a modern democratic state. To understand why English democracy works with a reigning monarch, it is necessary to grasp the kind of government that rules the United Kingdom, i.e., England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and the Commonwealth of Nations. Two peculiar aspects of government are in play in the English system of governance: constitutional monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty.
The power of the monarchy in the United Kingdom is limited by the various documents that make up its constitutional principles. There are some things that are not written, parliamentary conventions and Royal Prerogatives to name two, but they are still considered part of the British Constitution. The English Bill of Rights (1689) both limits the power of the King and/or Queen by its content and establishes the king making power of parliament by its very existence. As a result of the 1688 Glorious Revolution in which James II was forced to abdicate the throne, England’s Parliament presented William of Orange and Mary (King James II’s protestant daughter) with the document before they could be crowned King and Queen of England. Acceptance of the Bill of Rights established the monarchy of William and Mary, but also destroyed the idea that Kings and Queens rule by divine right. Instead elected members of Parliament had the authority to deny the throne to any who would deny the established rights of Englishmen. The text of the document says:
Upon which their said Majesties [William and Mary] did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said lords and commons [Parliament] contained in the said declaration.
This 1689 act of Parliament constitutionalized Britain's limited monarchy and parliamentary supremacy. The result: England’s monarch, presently Queen Elizabeth II, is the head of state whereas the prime minister, currently David Cameron whom she officially appointed after his election by Parliament, is head of the government. As head of state, the monarch maintains Royal Prerogative — certain authority, privileges, and immunities that were long established powers of the monarch — but these actions are usually carried out with the support of members of the government, i.e., Parliament.
Parliamentary sovereignty was part and parcel to the 1689 English Bill of Rights. A parliament with absolute sovereignty is one whose power is not subordinate to or limited by any other government body — neither an executive nor a judiciary. Therefore, parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament decides what the law is, and once enacted, no one can dispute the law. The House of Lords, the upper house of parliament, is the highest court of appeals in England’s judicial system. (This does not mean that a person injured by enforcement of an Act of Parliament has no recourse, but that is the subject of a different question.)
The monarch of England is the head of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations which includes over 2 billion people around the world. As head of state the monarch’s mission is to promote “democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace” (British Royal Family History) In her 64 year reign, Queen Elizabeth II “has had a total of 140 prime ministers” in her realm. Since the constitutional monarchy has limited powers, and the parliaments have vast powers in their respective governments, it is safe to say the United Kingdom and Commonwealth of Nations certainly do not need a monarch, but all Commonwealth Nations must accept Queen Elizabeth II, the current monarch, as head of the Commonwealth.
Members of the Commonwealth of nations choose to become members. “If,” as Timothy Garton Ash at the Guardian points out, “the existence of a constitutional monarchy seriously distorted the democratic process, made impossible an open society with life chances for all, and held the country back in a stuffy past of hierarchy and privilege,” the argument to depose the monarchy might be legitimate. It does not appear that the current monarch stifles democracy in the U.K. or any of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. But the future may tell a different story.
No comments:
Post a Comment