|
A NEW CONSTITUTION To End the Excessive Power of Prime Ministers |
A
CIVIC REPUBLICAN MANIFESTO 2009 For Great Britain VIRTUE FREEDOM ASPIRATION WEALTH PEACE |
DEBT FREE MONEY
To End the Misery of Debt Based Money |
 FLAG OF WALES SECOND REPUBLIC Flag of the Autonomous Region of Wales of the United Republic of Great Britain |
REDISCOVERING BRITISH CLASSICAL REPUBLICANISM |
OSCAR WILDE Writer (1854-1900) BRITISH REPUBLICAN |
| For up to date comments on current news stories from a Civic Republican point of view go to | ||
|
"It does not argue the necessity of abolishing monarchy to establish a republican government" Richard Carlile, Republican (1819) |
||
| HOME DEBT FREE MONEY INSTITUTIONS IDEALS CONSTITUTION CONTACT | ||
|
The sections can be read in any order but it is best to start with the three INTRODUCTION sections.(Grayed out pages have not yet been posted) --------------------
Economic Enfranchisement Non-aggressive Foreign Relations
Authority to Create Constitution Lower House Upper House Judiciary Supreme Court Public Services Monetary Policy Regions and Federation (to be completed)
Meritocracy Civil Society Crime and Penal reform Vice Cultural and Intellectual Life Church Disestablished Virtue and Happiness Young Generation
Monetary Policy (to be completed) Existing MPC and FSA Banking Money Flow Currency Industry
First British Republic History of Republicanism
Problems of Current System Advantage Votes Electoral System
National Flag Federal Flag
Republican Theory General History of Republicanism in Britain First Republic Period in Britain British Constitution Economics Enlightenment
The Need for a Republican Party
|
MONARCHY DISESTABLISHED
Throughout this website there is very little mention of the Monarchy. This is with good reason. The interest here is in Republicanism not the Monarchy.
The lack of acquaintance with constitutionalism means that for the majority of people in the Kingdom, Republicanism is equated simply with abolition of the Monarchy. There is a confusion about what could replace the Monarchy but the general view is to leave everything pretty much as it is. All the major faults of the present arrangements would thus be preserved.
It is doubtful if such a change would ever be acceptable to the British people as they would be hard pressed to see what the advantages of a simple abolition would be. It would still represent a fairly big step with attendant risks, but without very evident gains in view.
There are those who resent the costs of the Monarchy and the privileges it enjoys, especially perhaps in respect of taxes, and may be keen to see and end to these, but for most of the Queen's subjects such concerns are not a strong enough driver for reform. And whatever the tax breaks of the Monarchy, the central figures certainly work harder than most of us.
In any case, resentment and bitterness cannot be the foundations on which the new Republic will be built.
Historically, from the Republican point of view, a Monarchy, or something very similar to it, could be compatible with many of the Constitutional features that Republicans see as essential. Montesquieu, a thinker who has had one of the greatest influences on Republican thought and Republics in practice, was a Monarchist. The British system he observed in his time, in the eighteenth century, where a Constitutional Monarch was restrained by a separate two-tiered Legislature (Parliament) and a separate Judiciary, he saw as providing a sound model for creating Constitutions elsewhere.
In the English Republican tradition of the eighteenth century some Republicans even called themselves Monarchists for they saw, as Protestants, that the Monarch was the best guarantee of resisting the "Popery" on mainland Europe. It may seem counter-intuitive in the current climate but the strongest objection to the principal of the institution of Monarchy comes from adherence to Democracy not to Republicanism. And Democracy and Republicanism whilst compatible are not the same thing.
In the Republic of ancient Rome, the Consuls were very close to being Monarchs with the strong provisos that (a) there were two at any time not one and (b) the office was rotational, being held only for one year. In the Venetian Republic, the office of Doge was like a Monarchy with the proviso that it was elected (undemocratically of course) not hereditary. The office, however, was not rotational unless we regard the activity of the Great Reaper as inducing rotation.
From the purely Republican standpoint, the problem with the Monarchy as it stands in Britain at present is, less that it is hereditary than, that it has no authority. The problem with the office being hereditary is, less that it is not Republican than, that it is not Democratic. And in a Modern Republic, unlike in, say, the Venetian Republic, we must have Democracy as well as Republicanism.
The fact that the Monarchy has no authority would have been unacceptable to Montesquieu as his whole view of Constitutions was based on a balance of power between the different offices of state and this breaks down if one office has no authority and so no real power.
Constitutionally, of course, the British Monarchy still has immense power, as it always has had. But without authority this constitutional power does not translate into real power. If the Monarch decided to, for instance, exercise his or her constitutional power to dissolve Parliament without a personal request from the Prime Minister, the people would not accept this and a crisis would ensue in which, whatever happened, the Monarch would loose.
But let us take a moment to consider how authority to govern is established. There of four possible ways: 1. Through force (Tyranny or Dictatorship) 2. Through birth (or marriage) (Monarchy) 3. Through appointment (Civil Institutions) 4. Through election (Democracy)
For authority to work, respect for that authority is necessary. There is no doubt that a people can acquire respect for the authority of a Leader who uses terror and force to control them. And, in the past, the birthright of Monarchs was a very strong provider of respect that we might find hard to appreciate now. In Modern times Representative Democracy can establish respect for authority as can Appointment according to merit, qualification or achievement to positions in Civil Institutions (take judges as an example).
This is not to say, however, that force, democracy or appointment will work in every case. For instance, force cannot work in the present United Kingdom and democracy, perhaps, cannot work properly in the present Iraq.
The big problem for the Monarchy these days is that no one in the Kingdom, even the most ardent Monarchist, believes that birth or marriage can bestow authority to play a part in government. The other forms of authority still can work in Modern states but not this one.
The result is that all the authority invested in the Head of State, the Monarch, under the Constitution flows into the office of Head of Government, the Prime Minister, overloading that office with excessive power. The result of this excessive power is something that the British polity has to live with on a day by day basis and the strains caused by it are becoming ever more apparent as successive Prime Ministers drunk on power try to walk on water with inevitable results.*
The policy of the RPGB must not be to abolish the Monarchy but to disestablish it. This is not just of form of words. There is a real difference between abolition and disestablishment. A rough idea of what disestablishment means can be gained from regarding the status of the Catholic Church in France which was disestablished in 1906. The Church still exists but it has no constitutional role. (Incidentally, the Church of England under the new secular Constitution will also be disestablished.)
Before discussing the disestablishment of the Monarchy in detail, we will consider the Monarchy's situation as it is now and as it was in the relatively recent past. This is important, because maintaining a continuity between the present United Kingdom and the future United Republic is important.
* * *
It is rare for the UK media to speak of the individual members of the present Monarchy with real respect.
The Queen is usually mentioned with a fawning reverence that is not respectful. The other members of the Royal Family: the Prince of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke of York, the Princess Royal, the Earl of Wessex, Prince William of Wales, and Prince Henry of Wales, are subject to ridicule, intrusion and contempt. In so far as they are flattered, it is as media, Hello! type, personalities, with no depth, only image. The real efforts they make for the country, and their sense of obligation, receive scant regard. Their rights as individuals, as far as the media are concerned, do not exist.
Within a Republic true respect for others and their rights should be the norm and this extends to all. The problem that the Royal Family have within the Kingdom is that they are burdened with power but no authority. This puts them in an absurd, even surreal, situation, and this is shiningly clear to everyone. Whilst their constitutional power is there all right, and this explains the media's fascination, the fact that they cannot ever use it, but remain puppets of the elected Executive, means that, at root, they cannot be taken seriously. They are like a Toy Town monarchy.
Meanwhile, they have to dress up in beautiful, but archaic, clothes and uniforms and perform largely meaningless ceremonies, designed less for their subjects than for visiting citizens from foreign lands.
The predicament the Monarch and Royal Family find themselves in will be resolved, with the founding of the Republic, by the disestablishment of the Monarchy. The disestablishment will deprive the Monarchy of all constitutional power and status, so that the role it assumes will be appropriate to the authority it actually is capable of commanding. In political terms this is very little, but in terms of symbols, tradition and public duty it is strong and these are the areas where the Monarchy can still play a role (assuming, of course, that it wishes to do so).
* * *
The position of enormous power, but zero authority, that the present Monarch, the Queen, finds herself in means that she can say virtually nothing publicly on any problem affecting her people. She cannot be seen to be interfering with matters of state, for this would be immediately remind everyone of the unsaid constitutional power she really has.
This means that the business of commenting in public tends fall to the heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales, who has neither power nor authority. It is not inevitable that the heir to the throne should rise to this role but the present incumbent, Prince Charles, has wished to do so and in a whole variety of fields.
A precedent for the style he has adopted existed in the Prince Consort to Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, in the nineteenth century. Although not heir to the throne, as he was a foreigner, (he was also Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony) his position in relation to the Monarch had similarities to that of Prince Charles, and, furthermore the kind of activities he engaged in had similarities. The roles of Prince Albert and Prince Charles as powerless non-Monarchs close to an established Monarchy suggest a model for how a (powerless) Monarch might play a part under a disestablished Monarchy.
Of course, Prince Charles has taken a lot of flack for speaking out, but this is a pity. The following criteria should apply to the activities of someone in his position and it is clear that he has followed them.
The causes that Prince Charles has embraced, farming methods, architecture, youth enterprises, and others each conform to all or some of these criteria.
So it was with Prince Albert who championed the Great Exhibition of 1851, the construction of Museums in South Kensington (reflecting an interest in the arts and science that was ahead of his times), sometimes against fearful resistance from the establishment. He had a talent for management and introduced novel humane practices into farms. And he was little appreciated by the people during his lifetime. *
How far should the activities of Prince Charles should be compared to Prince Albert's may be matter of opinion but there clearly is a parallel in some ways. But, like Prince Albert, he is little appreciated. The achievements of Prince Albert, which we still benefit from, did become more appreciated after his death at the age of 42.
The disestablished Monarch should be to some extent an outsider, even a rebel. They will have no power and so the degree of influence they have will depend on the success and the quality of the causes they embrace. In this they can reestablish respect and dignity for themselves and society can learn to respect them. If we do not respect all members of the society within which we live, including the Monarchy, we do not respect ourselves.
* * *
It is a principle of Republicanism to lay great stress on Institutions - not just the Institutions that need to be created but also the institutions that we have. Institutions are the fabric of our society, they are what knits it together, and very careful consideration would have to take place before any Institution is consigned to the scrapheap of history. There is no strong justification for the abolition of the Monarchy, only for the abolition of its defunct constitutional powers to allow the establishment of a proper Head of State, a President.
The Monarchy as it stands is an Institution, but an archaic Institution for it is members are chosen neither by appointment (Civil Institution) nor by democratic election (Democratic Institution) but by birth or marriage. Having a constitutional role makes it currently a Government Institution as opposed to a Chartered Institution.
Under the new arrangements in the Republic, it will cease to be an Institution proper, as it will have neither a function determined by the Constitution (Government Institution) nor by Statute (Chartered Institution). It cannot be demoted to a Chartered status as it cannot reasonably conform to the principles of a Civil Institution under a Republican Constitution for its membership is not decided by merit, qualification or achievement.
It can qualify, however, as a Quasi-Institution whereby it resembles a true Institution in some ways but with neither constitutional nor chartered status. Existing examples of existing Quasi-Institutions would be the Boy Scouts or the Women's Institute. This might seem like a come down, and, indeed, it is, but let us not forget the respect in which these examples are held with none of the opprobrium that attaches to the existing Monarchy. To offset the stigma of the downgrading the Monarchy would retain its fabulous private wealth, if not its tax privileges.
An advantage that might be awarded the disestablished Monarchy (as it is now to some Quasi-Institutions) could be a Registration under Parliamentary Statute. This would give its members official position and protection of title. Depriving the existing Royal family of a constitutional role, would otherwise leave it open for anyone to set themselves up as a "Monarch" and adopt its titles. A succession of media backed "Pretenders" would be a blow to the dignity of the Royal Family and irksome to just about everybody. Registration could include a special dispensation to fly the Royal Standard without the planning permission normally required for non-national flags*.
The alternative to disestablishment, i.e. abolition, as advocated by "civil list republicans", would technically not be a simple matter as many ramifications would follow. The following state the advantages of disestablishment over abolition and in the process flesh out a little the new picture we will have of the Monarchy:
* * *
In terms of the practical arrangements for accommodating the new office of President and the disestablished Monarchy, the Monarchy might retain St James's Palace on the Mall and Kensington Palace in Hyde Park and certain country estates.
Buckingham Palace will be required as the new Presidential Palace. It can also provide additional government offices for which there is a need currently.
Interestingly, as it happens, the configuration of Buckingham Palace, Nelson’s Column and the Houses of Parliament form an "L" on plan that corresponds to that of the White House, the Washington Memorial and the Capitol. The White House and the Capitol are at the extremities of the arms of an "L" with the Washington Memorial (the giant sectional obelisk) at the angle. The Memorial thus forms a fulcrum about which the axes leading to the White House and the Capitol turn. Nelson's column is similarly placed in respect of The Mall leading to Buckingham Palace and Whitehall leading to Westminster Palace
The Garden of Buckingham Palace will be used for Presidential entertaining, welcoming foreign dignitaries and other official events. With an elected President as a powerful Head of State, visits to the Garden will have rather more meaning. After all, to be blunt, what was the point in talking to the Queen?
Buckingham Palace like the White House (but a little more grand) will become the other focus of political life of the nation to the Houses of Parliament. The official traffic between the Presidential Palace and the Houses of Parliament will be a constant reminder of our government's business.
A partial pedestrianisation of The Mall, Trafalgar Square and Whitehall will be undertaken to guarantee movement of official traffic and incidentally provide a much needed freedom of movement for pedestrians. The importance of the new Republican machinery of government will thus be on display and the most historic part of the metropolis open to be fully appreciated by visitors both from the regions and abroad.
Ceremonies will be better served by the new arrangements. The Household Cavalry and Royal Guard will become the Republican Guard without much change. The tradition of the uniforms will continue as it does in the Republics of France and Greece.
The President will fly the British Republican White Cross over Buckingham Palace. The abominable Union Jack* will be seen nowhere as it will be declassified as a national flag and so will not be able to be flown for an extended period without planning permission.
© Peter Kellow www.republicanparty.org.uk
VIRTUE FREEDOM ASPIRATION WEALTH PEACE
|
SIGN UP FOR FREE WEEKLY
EMAILED NEWSLETTER Your email address: -------------------Go to previous Newsletters ------------------- Press F11 to read FULL SCREEN press F11 to undo -------------------
*
The Royal Standard.viz
|
As Ireland is no longer a part of the Union it is a nonsense to have
the flag of St Patrick incorporated into the British national flag.
To do so smacks of jingoism which is what the Union Jack invariably
is associated with. Northern Ireland may still be part of the
Union but its flag has no relation to St Patrick's cross being an
adaptation of St George's cross.viz.