Republicanism in The United Kingdom - Arguments in Favour of Constitutional Monarchy

Arguments in Favour of Constitutional Monarchy

• Monarchy can be complementary to rather than a replacement for democracy

Some argue that the current system is still democratic as the Government and MPs of Parliament are elected by universal suffrage and as the Crown acts only on the advice of the Parliament, the people still hold power. Monarchy only refers to how the head of state is chosen and not how the Government is chosen. It is only undemocratic if the monarchy holds meaningful power, which it currently does not as government rests with Parliament. However, it was revealed in October 2011 that both the Queen and Prince Charles do have the power to veto government legislation which affects their private interests.

• Provides a safeguard against government instability

Some argue that the Monarch's constitutional position (with the little-used power to dissolve or refuse a government) could safeguard against Britain ever becoming a dictatorship however Republic has refuted claims that the monarchy has this sort of power. Examples of this argument being used often include the 1981 April Fool's Day Coup in Thailand and the El Tejerazo coup in Spain when King Bhumibol and King Juan Carlos I respectively stepped in to restore democracy in their countries.

• Safeguards the constitutional rights of the individual

The British constitutional system proscribes limits on Parliament and separates the executive from direct control over the police and courts. Constitutionalists argue that this is because contracts with the monarch such as the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union place obligations on the state and confirm its citizens as sovereign beings. These obligations are re-affirmed at every monarch's coronation. These obligations, whilst at the same time placing limits on the power of the judiciary and the police, also confirm those rights which are intrinsically part of British and especially English culture Examples are Common Law, the particular status of ancient practices, jury trials, legal precedent, protection against non-judicial seziure and the right to protest. Removal of the monarchy would unravel this delicate framework of political checks and balances, tested and modified over centuries, which recognise rights of the individual British citizen which cannot be found in The European Convention on Human Rights nor in most other countries.

• Provides an impartial arbiter

Monarchists argue that an impartial, symbolic head of state is a step removed from political, commercial, and factional interests, allowing them to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between various levels of government and political parties, an especially indispensable feature in a federal system. The fact that the monarch nominally holds all executive authority is seen as advantageous by monarchists, who state that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain. This view of the monarchy could have developed after Oliver Cromwell's Republic which eventually became a military dictatorship. Monarchists assert that honours systems like the French Legion of Honour may not be as politically impartial as they feel that a monarch is whereas republicans have argued in the past that the association of the honours sytem with the monarchy makes it uninclusive as not everyone will agree with the monarchy.

• Provides a focal point for unity and tradition

Monarchists argue that a constitutional monarch with limited powers and non-partisan nature can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.

• Provides continuity and stability

Monarchists argue that having a long serving monarch would increase the sense of duty and continued stability of a nation as the monarch would not have to worry about staying in power or elections every few years and be solely focused on their duties. They would also be more familiar with their position as they would have had many years to prepare for it and they would meet more people and gain knowledge and respect throughout the world. The Queen is one of the most recognised people in the world whilst presidents and politicians are often forgotten after they leave office or are unheard of to other countries of the world whilst in office.

• The Royals promote the image of the United Kingdom worldwide

Monarchists argue that a figurehead detached from the government enables the UK to reach out and connect to other countries across the world because political ideology alone within a republic can isolate the country.

• Tourism

Monarchists argue that the monarchy is an impetus for significantly greater national income from tourism because many tourists come to the United Kingdom to see the palaces and other institutions such as the Coldstream Guards that are central to the monarchy.

• If there was a republic, the costs will remain the same

Some argue that if there was a republic, the costs incured in regards to the duties of the head of state would remain more or less the same. This includes the upkeep and conservation of the royal palaces and buildings which would still have to be paid for as they belong to the nation as a whole rather than the monarch personally. On top of that, the head of state would require a salary and security, state visits, banquets and ceremonial duties would still go ahead. In 2009, the monarchy claimed to be costing each person an estimated 69 pence a year (not including "a hefty security bill"). However, the figure of 69p per person has been criticised for having been calculated by dividing the overall figure by approximately 60 million people, rather than by the number of British taxpayers.

• A British Republic has already been tested and failed

Even though no modern republicans advocate a republic modelled on Cromwell's Protectorate, some point out that a Republican Commonwealth of England, Ireland and Scotland has already been tried when Oliver Cromwell installed it on 30 January 1649. Yet by February 1657 some people argued that Cromwell should assume the crown as it would stabilise the constitution, limit his powers and restore precedent. Cromwell declined. Within three years of his death the Republic had lost support and the monarchy was restored. Later, during The Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused partially by disillusionment with the absolutist rule of the Scottish James II of England (VII of Scotland), Parliament and others argued that James had broken "the original contract" with the state. Far from pressing for a republic, which had been experienced within living memory, they instead argued that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy with explicitly circumscribed powers.