Here in the United Kingdom we do have elected government officials. The Prime Minister is the one in charge, who in turn appoints a cabinet from other members of Parliament who have been democratically elected by their local constituents. Despite being "in charge", the Prime Minister is not the Head of State, and therefore not technically in charge. The Head of State of the United Kingdom is the monarch. At the time of writing, the monarch is Queen Elizabeth II.
Now while the monarch has become essentially a figurehead who does not exercise any true power, they are still head of the government, head of the armed forces and head of the church. Yes, I live in a country where there is still state sponsored religion (The Church of England, appropriately enough) which is headed by the reigning monarch. I will come to my objections to the religious aspect at a later date, for this time I want to address the idea of the monarchy.
The people of the United Kingdom have no say in who their Head of State is. Once the monarch dies or abdicates (the former being the most likely) they are replaced by the next in line biologically. All it takes to become royalty is to be born to the right family. When Queen Elizabeth dies, she will (as it stands) be succeeded by Charles, Prince of Wales. The public have no option. This all happens in a democracy.
The monarch actually has the power to refuse a government or Prime Minister, and can also dissolve Parliament completely. This would not be likely though, because if a monarch chose to do so it would most likely lead to the abolition of the monarchy completely. My question is: Why wait? What purpose does the monarchy serve Britain in this modern era? Would the lack of a monarchy make the foundations of British society crumble? I suspect not. Britain would be better off, in my opinion, without the monarchy and the House of Lords (another unelected branch of the British government).
Despite my feeling that Britain would be better off I am sure that the monarchy will last in Britain at least for the rest of my lifetime. I want to live in the United States of America, and have wanted to for a long time. The fact that the United States is a republic, and that the rights of man are guaranteed by Constitutional law are two major factors in my yearning to make America my home.
Now while the monarch has become essentially a figurehead who does not exercise any true power, they are still head of the government, head of the armed forces and head of the church. Yes, I live in a country where there is still state sponsored religion (The Church of England, appropriately enough) which is headed by the reigning monarch. I will come to my objections to the religious aspect at a later date, for this time I want to address the idea of the monarchy.
The people of the United Kingdom have no say in who their Head of State is. Once the monarch dies or abdicates (the former being the most likely) they are replaced by the next in line biologically. All it takes to become royalty is to be born to the right family. When Queen Elizabeth dies, she will (as it stands) be succeeded by Charles, Prince of Wales. The public have no option. This all happens in a democracy.
The monarch actually has the power to refuse a government or Prime Minister, and can also dissolve Parliament completely. This would not be likely though, because if a monarch chose to do so it would most likely lead to the abolition of the monarchy completely. My question is: Why wait? What purpose does the monarchy serve Britain in this modern era? Would the lack of a monarchy make the foundations of British society crumble? I suspect not. Britain would be better off, in my opinion, without the monarchy and the House of Lords (another unelected branch of the British government).
Despite my feeling that Britain would be better off I am sure that the monarchy will last in Britain at least for the rest of my lifetime. I want to live in the United States of America, and have wanted to for a long time. The fact that the United States is a republic, and that the rights of man are guaranteed by Constitutional law are two major factors in my yearning to make America my home.
2 comments:
The US is not some sacred land of constitutional rights. Thankfully with President Obama many rights taken away by Bush will be returned, but the fact that my own government was able to pass the Patriot Act makes America no longer the land of the free. America under Bush was a fascist regime, and many Americans still feel that this should be the way things should be run. I don't know enough about UK laws or life, but I imagine that neither place is better than the other.
I am in no way an apologist for Bush and his administration. The violations of the Constitution were unforgivable. The Patriot Act is the most clear example of this.
The ideals upon which the United States were created are admirable and ground-breaking. Having said that I am under no illusion that the US remains perfect.
I do hope that the Obama administration will do some much needed repair work.
In regards to one country being better than the other I would say that technically you are right. I would say that better is a matter of perspective. For me personally, the US is a much more promising prospect than remaining in the UK.
Post a Comment