Seamus Milne, The Guardian: Cut This Anti-Democratic Dynasty Out of Politics

[Ben]

With a strong attack on the Royal Family.

One I agree with.

Britain's royal family: cut this anti-democratic dynasty out of politics | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

[Limabeany]

 :goodpost:

Excerpt 1:

"You'd never know it from the way the monarchy is treated in British public life, but polling in recent years shows between 20% and 40% think the country would be better off without it, and most still believe it won't last. That proportion is likely to rise when hapless Charles replaces the present Queen.

It's not a very radical demand, but an elected head of state is a necessary step to democratise Britain and weaken the grip of deferential conservatism and anti-politics. People could vote for Prince William or Kate Middleton if they wanted and the royals could carry on holding garden parties and travelling around in crowns and gold coaches. The essential change is to end the constitutional role of an unelected dynasty. It might even be the saving of this week's royal baby."

[Honesty]

And an excellent rebuttal in the comments by George Ellis, at 9:43 pm on the 23rd.
I totally agree with him.  The facts well written.

[cinrit]

Why is this in Charles' section?  Shouldn't it be in the Republic Today section?  Or am I missing something?

Cindy

[Mike]

Done.    :)

[cinrit]

Thanks, Mike. :)

Cindy

[Orchid]

Thanks for moving this article here, Mike - and thanks for posting it, Ben! :thumbsup:

****

I apologize profusely in advance for the length of my post, but I feel compelled to pretty much quote most of this article for discussion, (while praising its sheer genius in phrasing some home truths in a thoroughly apt and eloquent fashion).

And last, the media and political class form such a sycophantic ideological phalanx around the institution that dissent is treated as, at best, weird and miserabilist.

What a perfectly accurate way of phrasing what I have been attempting to say for so long (but ineptly). Having been at the end of what he terms as miserablist, I know exactly what he means, in that ideals supporting a move towards a republic are debased by monarchy's supporters as mere grumblings of inequality. It's good that the issue has been highlighted to debase, in return, the dismissive tones towards republicanism. 

The point about the media as a "sycophantic ideological phalanx" is also important when considering the coverage of monarchy and its effects on the viewing public. For instance, the BBC's hyperbolic coverage of the birth – should they have been so hyperbolic about it?

But ignoring it leaves a festering anti-democratic dynasticism at the heart of our political system.

Indeed.  And really I cannot understand why even monarchists feel willing to bypass the issue of one family's dynastic heritage of political and cultural power in an age where democracy and transparency is so keenly sought. Tradition should never trump democracy and modernity, especially when there are so many obvious flaws to continuing such a tradition.

As things now stand, Britain (along with 15 other former island colonies and white settler states) has now chosen its next three heads of state – or rather, they have been selected by accident of aristocratic birth. The descendants of warlords, robber barons, invaders and German princelings – so long as they aren't Catholics – have automatic pride of place at the pinnacle of Britain's constitution.

... yet how undemocratic and strained this "system" is in a western world that in every other respect attempts to pride itself on modernism, equality and democracy?

Far from uniting the country, the monarchy's role is seen as illegitimate and offensive by millions of its citizens, and entrenches hereditary privilege at the heart of public life. While British governments preach democracy around the world, they preside over an undemocratic system at home with an unelected head of state and an appointed second chamber at the core of it.

This is worth quoting purely to isolate the point being made and to hopefully foster thought and discussion.

Meanwhile celebrity culture and a relentless public relations machine have given a new lease of life to a dysfunctional family institution, as the X Factor meets the pre-modern.

Again, an apt point. Monarchy has become (or perhaps always was to varying degrees) a celebrity-based culture. It's a type of reality show for people to follow and in so doing the true nature of their very existence is often glossed over, forgotten and superseded by the visuality of their gilded, celebrity driven show.

If the royal family were simply the decorative constitutional adornment its supporters claim, punctuating the lives of grateful subjects with pageantry and street parties, its deferential culture and invented traditions might be less corrosive. But contrary to what is routinely insisted, the monarchy retains significant unaccountable powers and influence. In extreme circumstances, they could still be decisive.

A point I have consistently made on this forum over the years only to be faced with rebuffals of this fact.  It is highly dangerous for a country to maintain a system that affords one family – one individual – prerogative powers to override what is, at best, our secondary chamber of government – parliament. Every system of government ought to be elected and accountable to the will and choice of the people. As it stands, we have a government that is elected and accountable to a hereditary, unaccountable, unelected head of state.

If I were to ask Americans whether they would exchange their democratic system of Presidency for an unelected system of monarchy and a second chamber of government, the answer would be quite interesting – particularly from those who seem to enjoy watching the British monarchy show but without the direct political effects on the democratic character of their country.

Several key crown prerogative powers, exercised by ministers without reference to parliament on behalf of the monarchy, have now been put on a statutory footing. But the monarch retains the right to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament. By convention, these powers are only exercised on the advice of government or party leaders. But it's not impossible to imagine, as constitutional experts concede, such conventions being overridden in a social and political crisis – for instance where parties were fracturing and alternative parliamentary majorities could be formed.
The British establishment are past masters at such constitutional sleights of hand – and the judges, police and armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown, not parliament. The left-leaning Australian Labor leader Gough Whitlam was infamously sacked by the Queen's representative, the governor-general, in 1975. Less dramatically the Queen in effect chose Harold Macmillan as prime minister over Rab Butler in the late 1950s – and then Alec Douglas-Home over Butler in 1963.
More significant in current circumstances is the monarchy's continual covert influence on government, from the Queen's weekly audiences with the prime minister and Prince Charles's avowed "meddling" to lesser known arm's-length interventions.

PERHAPS WORTH A DEDICATED THREAD TO DISCUSS?

It's not a very radical demand, but an elected head of state is a necessary step to democratise Britain and weaken the grip of deferential conservatism and anti-politics. People could vote for Prince William or Kate Middleton if they wanted and the royals could carry on holding garden parties and travelling around in crowns and gold coaches. The essential change is to end the constitutional role of an unelected dynasty. It might even be the saving of this week's royal baby.

Very wise points indeed. What are people's thoughts on this?  Eliminating the constitutional role of monarchy to secure Britain's democratic character whilst offering an option to vote for say, William and Kate, and all of the pomp and visual performance they offer if people wish to retain it for entertainment/celebrity sake? And do you think the royals would continue to perform their carriage rides and ribbon cutting if they were not being financially and materially rewarded with such vast sums of wealth and diplomatic privilege?

On a final point of the opinion polls favouring a republic at 20 – 40% (or 10 million people) this is quite unhelpful because the polls are such small samplings (usually of a thousand or so) that it can hardly be deemed representative. The same is true when such polls claim a majority of Brits want to retain monarchy – it's simply inaccurate and misleading.  But as I've constantly maintained, a national referendum on monarchy would be the best recourse for establishing inclusive public sentiment and really the only way to move the whole issue forward – and perhaps this is why we aren't getting one!

[Ben]

The point about the media as a "sycophantic ideological phalanx" is also important when considering the coverage of monarchy and its effects on the viewing public. For instance, the BBC's hyperbolic coverage of the birth – should they have been so hyperbolic about it?

As a public broadcaster, the BBC have a duty to be impartial and report all view. The cheerleading we regularly see from the BBC is not the neutrality you would expect from a publicly funded broadcaster but instead has chilling tones of a state broadcaster.

Indeed.  And really I cannot understand why even monarchists feel willing to bypass the issue of one family's dynastic heritage of political and cultural power in an age where democracy and transparency is so keenly sought. Tradition should never trump democracy and modernity, especially when there are so many obvious flaws to continuing such a tradition.

I agree. Democracy is far more important and a tradition where the UK and other commonwealth countries have had an unelected head of state for over three centuries is not one to be proud of, nor is it at all progressive.

... yet how undemocratic and strained this "system" is in a western world that in every other respect attempts to pride itself on modernism, equality and democracy?

Exactly. The UK cannot preach democracy with an unelected head of state.

... Again, an apt point. Monarchy has become (or perhaps always was to varying degrees) a celebrity-based culture. It's a type of reality show for people to follow and in so doing the true nature of their very existence is often glossed over, forgotten and superseded by the visuality of their gilded, celebrity driven show.?

I would like to know if the Royal Family would be so popular if they were not portrayed in the British press as being like the Simpsons with all the feuds, controversy, and yet all the 'good' they do for this country. The Royal Family has benefited from dumbed down coverge in the tabloid press. No wonder they are so popular with the cheerleading role the majority of our press play.

... A point I have consistently made on this forum over the years only to be faced with rebuffals of this fact.  It is highly dangerous for a country to maintain a system that affords one family – one individual – prerogative powers to override what is, at best, our secondary chamber of government – parliament. Every system of government ought to be elected and accountable to the will and choice of the people. As it stands, we have a government that is elected and accountable to a hereditary, unaccountable, unelected head of state.

Spot on,  I have nothing to add.

... If I were to ask Americans whether they would exchange their democratic system of Presidency for an unelected system of monarchy and a second chamber of government, the answer would be quite interesting – particularly from those who seem to enjoy watching the British monarchy show but without the direct political effects on the democratic character of their country.

I don't think they would. The American elections attract far more interest in the US than the General Election ever does in the UK. There is a lot of popular support for a president in the US.

... Very wise points indeed. What are people's thoughts on this?  Eliminating the constitutional role of monarchy to secure Britain's democratic character whilst offering an option to vote for say, William and Kate, and all of the pomp and visual performance they offer if people wish to retain it for entertainment/celebrity sake? And do you think the royals would continue to perform their carriage rides and ribbon cutting if they were not being financially and materially rewarded with such vast sums of wealth and diplomatic privilege?

Of course not is your answer. Voting for an elected head of state would be a far more democratic alternative and would remove a lot of the doubt I have about the Royal Family.

... On a final point of the opinion polls favouring a republic at 20 – 40% (or 10 million people) this is quite unhelpful because the polls are such small samplings (usually of a thousand or so) that it can hardly be deemed representative. The same is true when such polls claim a majority of Brits want to retain monarchy – it's simply inaccurate and misleading.  But as I've constantly maintained, a national referendum on monarchy would be the best recourse for establishing inclusive public sentiment and really the only way to move the whole issue forward – and perhaps this is why we aren't getting one!

I would love there to be an election for Head of State and a referendum to gauge public opinion but I doubt this will ever happen because of fear!