The death of Queen Elizabeth II last September shattered much of the default nostalgia and positive perception that ensured the monarchy remained relatively unquestioned by the public. Republican criticisms would often be met not with any principled defence of the institution, but by some vague endorsement of the Queen.
It therefore seems that with King Charles III ascending to the throne, proclaimed as our new head of state only two days after his mother’s death and whether we the public like it or not, his approaching coronation should be an important time to question this antiquated, anti-democratic pantomime and to call instead for a grown-up constitutional system.
In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote of hereditary succession that ‘nature disapproves it; otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion.’ Charles Windsor is particularly likely to provoke renewed scepticism around the monarchy. Prior to the propaganda circus of recent months, his popularity was relatively low, for understandable reasons.
What kind of king?
The legacy of his mistreatment of, and acrimonious divorce from, Princess Diana still blemishes his personal reputation. Politically, he’ll doubtless push the limits of the royal neutrality fundamental to our constitutional settlement. And, by contrast to the relative discretion of the late Queen, Charles carries a distinct stench of corruption: witness him receiving a large private cash donation from a Middle Eastern billionaire (passed to one of his charities) and a cash-for-honours case involving the Prince’s Foundation, still under investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service, although the issue seems to have been kicked into the long grass.
Moreover, he has a history of lobbying ministers and of campaigning, including (as he’s keen to remind us) on environmental issues.
Of course, Charles is correct in much of his environmental advocacy – though as somebody who lives in palaces and flies in private jets on trips to cement arms sales to Gulf dictatorships, his green credentials can only be taken so seriously – but a democrat should object as a matter of principle to a hereditary monarch abusing their position for political influence.
As we face the prospect of spending tens of millions of pounds of public money on a coronation ceremony during a cost of living crisis, atop the hundreds of millions annually that the monarchy costs in total, and when ministers have refused to grant real-terms pay increases for teachers or NHS staff, what might an alternative look like?
An Irish template
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that a referendum was won to replace the monarchy and House of Lords with an elected head of state and upper house, and to codify a constitution. We need look no further than our nearest neighbour to see such a parliamentary republic in operation.
The Constitution of Ireland was drafted under the leadership of Éamon de Valera and ratified by the Irish public in 1937, affirming the structure of the modern state. The elected president acts as a figurehead and guardian of the constitution, restraining government power, opening and closing parliament, signing bills into law, etc. In other words, somewhat like a monarch, only cheaper and more representative, with a popular mandate and thus not bound in practice to follow the directives of the government.
The Oireachtas (parliament) is bicameral, with the directly elected Dáil Éireann equivalent to our House of Commons, and the weaker upper chamber, the Seanad Éireann, chosen by various indirect methods. If we wished to elect our upper chamber by different means, there are states across the world from which we might take inspiration.
With such a structure as this (itself modelled on Britain), our political system would look broadly unchanged – it’s worth noting that the Dáil elections work by proportional representation so are in practice more democratic than our own, but that’s a separate conversation. The point is that becoming a republic need hardly require reinventing the wheel; merely expanding democracy and codifying the structure of the state and the fundamental rights of its citizens.
A monarch is for life
Therefore, when monarchists raise the spectre of a republican Britain electing a ‘President Trump,’ or ‘President Blair,’ they misunderstand or misrepresent what is proposed. Trump isn’t an applicable bogeyman because the US has a very different political system.
Neither is Tony Blair, because after Iraq his popularity plummeted and he would never win an election. If we did elect a bad president (bearing in mind they wouldn’t have much power in the first place), we could replace them at the next election or sooner, whereas a bad monarch is for life.
If you don’t trust the people to choose their own leaders, say so upfront. For all the messiness that democracy can present, I’d contend that it’s at least better than bloodline supremacy. The coronation should therefore not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Those inclined may sign up to join the largest protest so far coordinated by the campaign group Republic, taking place in London on 6th May to represent the growing number (currently 35 per cent of adults under 50) who favour a democratic future for Britain.
Hopefully our new king will be the last ass imposed upon us.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
