As Rye’s town sergeant, I am required to swear an annual oath of allegiance to our monarch; as town crier, every cry ends with “God Save The King!”
As the coronation of King Charles III approaches, there has been growing discussion on social media and amongst protest groups arguing for the monarchy to be abolished and replaced with an elected head of state. There seems to be a perception that an hereditary, constitutional monarchy is somehow undemocratic. I believe the facts prove that this perception is wrong.
Every year, the Democracy Index is published, ranking every country in the world on how democratic and free that country is, based on a variety of factors. Seven out of the top ten “most democratic countries” in the 2022 Democracy Index are hereditary, constitutional monarchies. The “most democratic” country, Norway, is an hereditary, constitutional monarchy.
Republics with elected heads of state tend to be far further down the Index. Both America (which prides itself on being ‘democratic’) and France are not ranked as ‘full democracies’ at all – they are considered to be ‘flawed democracies’.
So why are countries with hereditary constitutional monarchies ranked as more democratic than republics, when intuition would suggest the opposite to be true? The answer is, quite simply, the deposition of power.
In a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK), the head of state has no real power, or only symbolic power. True power within the country is wielded by the House of Commons, which has 650 fully elected members, representing every corner of the country.
In a republic with an elected president, much executive power is wielded by just one person, the president (an elected president has to have personal power, otherwise how could he enact the policies which he offers during his electoral campaign?). In the majority of republics, the president is capable of over-ruling, or at least stalling, the elected parliament.
If the UK were to become a republic with an elected head of state, there would need to be a transfer of a significant chunk of executive power from the 650 elected members of the House of Commons, to just one person. How is that “more democratic”?
We have seen in recent months how easily the House of Commons can thwart or change a prime minister; the House even has the (rarely-used) power to change the monarch. However, it would not have the power to change an elected president, no matter how vile he might prove, because the president could claim a ‘mandate from the people’, through having been elected.
As we have seen throughout modern history, elected presidents as head of state can evolve into dictators, as they have power and no-one to answer to. This cannot happen in an hereditary constitutional monarchy, as the position of head of state is already occupied by a non-political, powerless (because unelected) monarch. The hereditary element – although seemingly “unfair and privileged” – guarantees that there is never a vacancy for head of state that a dictator could slip into, because the monarch’s heir is in position the second the monarch dies.
Therefore, although the system for appointing a head of state in a monarchy may, in itself, not be democratic, the very same system ensures that our country as a whole remains more democratically governed than a republic would be.
I’m aware that there are plenty of other arguments for or against retaining the monarchy; I’m sure the comments section below will be filled with plenty of “but what about – “; however, I hope I have demonstrated that the perception that it somehow makes Britain ‘undemocratic’ is the very reverse of the truth.
