An Oasis

Union of the Crowns

In this, the 400th anniversary year of the Union of the Crowns, is it not about time that we reviewed the constitutional situation of the United Kingdom?

The recent resignation of Dr. Peter Hollingsworth, the Queen's Governor General of Australia, highlighted the anachronism.

In my view the only real benefit gained by having a monarch as head of state is that of continuity; Queen Elizabeth II has had 11 Prime Ministers (Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Macmillan, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Sir Winston Churchill) and her weekly audience with each spanning 50 years together with her assiduous attention to her red boxes surely makes her the most knowledgable person on British, Commonwealth and International matters.

Her experience of Government, and the longevity of the brand Queen Elizabeth, are in my view good for the UK but there is a price and that price is true democracy. Of course it could be argued that we have democracy by our complicity with the arrangement. Were it the will of the people, the monarch would have no option but to step aside gracefully. The armed forces are loyal to the monarch, but probably not unflinchingly so. When the monarch no longer represents the people, the tie breaks down. The more or less ceremonial role which she enjoys (or suffers) is uncontroversial enough that she is only likely to exercise sovereign authority against the wishes of her government when the government seeks to, say, prolong it's own life against the constitution of the UK.

Queen Elizabeth's first Prime Minister Winston Churchill, always a great source for quotes, said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all others." He also observed however that "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The role then, aside from ceremonial, is as a final check on the excesses of government. Could that role be equally exercised by someone else? An elected official? If we were to retain the monarcy would it be wise to implement a further final check by the people, e.g. a semi-regular plebiscite seeking approval for the continuation of the status quo, or does our existing system implicitly acknowledge that the monarch serves at the pleasure of the people?

Posted by Paul at June 6, 2003 06:19 PM |