The Advantages of the UK Having a Constitutional Monarchy
As we enter the 21st century, the discussion about the existence of
constitutional monarchy has become more and more commonplace. The
¡®constitutional monarchy¡¯ means the monarch's powers are largely
exercised by the elected government. The Queen is Head of State which
means she symbolizes the ultimate sovereignty of the state and
represents Britain in an official capacity when foreign Heads of state
visit the UK. Different people hold quite different point of views on
this topic, however I, personally, would argue that the advantages of
the UK having a constitutional monarchy are much greater than its
disadvantages and the monarchy should not be fully abolished.
The disadvantages
=================
In order to prove my viewpoint, I want to concisely list and discuss
some disadvantages of having a constitutional monarchy first.
Firstly, some of the people submit that the existence of monarchy
underpins hierarchy and difference. As far as we know, monarchy is
inherited and privileged; some of his/her decisions may favour the
upper classes instead of ordinary citizens. Some people may therefore
argue that why we cannot elect a monarchy by ourselves on the basis of
every citizen is born to be equal? Some critics recognise that this
fact is really unequal to ordinary people in some degree, but, anyone
cannot deny a truth that the inherited monarchy is the most suitable
one. Queen has become the focus of the world since she was born as
well as she has devoted herself to the royal affairs from that time
onward. All these affairs give her enough experience to deal with t...
... middle of paper ...
... Keeping a tight rein on the Royal purse strings. <2000>
accountancyage.com
Available at:
[iv] The changing face of the monarchy <1998> BBC News
Available at: <
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/diana/59991.stm>
[v] Ibid
[vi] History of the monarchy <2003>
Available at:
[vii] Making Liz the last <2000> Dave Craig
Available at:
[viii] Ibid
[ix] The Queen¡¯s Role <1999>
Available at:
[x] Royal Visits <2002>
Available at:
[xi] Making Liz the last <2000> Dave Craig
Available at:
Constitutional monarchies like the UK have combined the best aspects of democracy, monarchy, and aristocracy in hopes of removing tyranny, anarchy, and oligarchy. In the United States we give power to an elected body of many individuals, however, we retain power as citizens and individuals of this country through our right to vote for these elected officials. The power of a citizen outside of politics is fixed based on their ability/inability to vote. However, certain politicians have done specifically what Madison hoped this Constitution would prevent. They have created “democratic” factions through a populist perspective that has put certain people in a position of power by appealing to the common people. They have divided our society leading in comparison to the way in which other democracies as Madison explains have
There could be arguments supporting it and arguments going against it. As a result, the citizens of the UK saw a codified constitution as a necessity at that moment. However, there are many advantages of an uncodified constitution. The biggest advantage is the idea of flexibility. As societies are changing, and societal norms take new forms, it is very important for the constitution of countries to adapt to that quickly, as a country’s constitution should be in the best interest for its citizens.
At the present time, there is nothing wrong with the constitution, and if there was anything wrong with it, it could be changed by referendum, once again proving that becoming a republic is pointless. Currently, we are not tied down at all by the monarchy, and although the Queen does have the power to intervene in the running of our country, she doesn't out of tradition, and therefore, probably never will, bound by the tradition. If we become a republic, we would lose valuable ties with England and perhaps part of our heritage that goes with it. England can support us through many unfortunate events that we may face and England, being on the other side of the world may not, putting them in a position to offer us financial, military or other support.
The Strengths of the U.K. Constitution Britain’s need for a codified constitution, as a unitary state, is different. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also a political union, but based on the sovereignty of the national Parliament. The UK now has a Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly able to pass their own domestic legislation and a National Assembly for Wales which can make secondary legislation. But all these were created by and are subordinate to the Westminster Parliament, as are all 468 county, borough, district and unitary councils. Parliamentary sovereignty also entails the right to make or unmake any law whatever.
The Effectiveness of the House of Commons as a Check on the Executive What is meant by the effectiveness of the commons check on the executive is basically, how able is the house of commons to prevent the Government (executive) from getting its own way or forcing its will upon the people of Britain. In theory the commons level of effectiveness is constant as each Member of Parliament has an opinion on every bill or motion that is put forward that is based on conscience. This is not practicable, however, as the party system and the party whips change this. The whips tell MPs which way to vote and can impose sanctions upon those MPs who rebel against the government.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
"THE RELIGION OF THE QUEEN - TIME FOR CHANGE." University of Queensland Law Journa (2011): n. pag. Web.The British monarchy is a system of government in which a traditional monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom out of the country territories, and holds the constitutional position of head of state. According to the article, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the suggestion of her prime minister. Moreover, she firmly reserves powers which she may exercise at her own discretion. The Queen has many theoretical personal advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantages was that UK prohibits her from get married with a catholic member either being a roman catholic. However, with the exception of the appointment of the major minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few positions in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional
The constitution existing before 1787 was not working for many people. There was no chief executive, no court system and not even a way for the central government to force the state government to pay taxes. The challenge for James Madison and his colleagues was to write a constitution that guards against tyranny. Tyranny is when a person or a group of people seizes all the power in a very harsh manner. What aspects did James Madison consider when writing the new constitution in Philadelphia? The constitution guards against tyranny in the following ways, it deals with tyranny with federalism, separation and distinction of power, and checks and balances.
James Madison writes in Federalist #10 arguing that a larger republic following the Constitution would better unite the Union under a strong central government allowing more control over factions.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Before the mid-1600s, Government Monarchies looked to expand their colonies for two main motives: to ensure their own political and military power and to create access to markets for various goods. However, during these times Europe called for new regimes and consolidation of territory’s after conflicts such as the Thirty Years War occurred. From 1618-1648 tensions between the German Catholic and Protestant churches ensued thus creating a civil war. The war was mostly fought in Germany, however, it expanded to various European countries such as France, Sweden and Spain. What began as a religious issue soon transformed into constitutional matters because of higher powers using the influence of war to expand their empire. The role of the Thirty
Americans tend to hold their great historical documents as sacred, giving those documents an incredible influence on American politics even today. Hundreds of years after the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were written, these documents still continue to shape American political culture. The Constitution seems to be the most powerful of American historical documents, giving rise to a constitutional politics in which every aspect of the document plays a vital role. The most heated political debates are often over the constitutionality, or lack thereof, concerning the issue in question. Differing interpretations of the Constitution allow for opposite sides of such debates to have points of view which are both seemingly valid even when they are mutually exclusive. Debates over specific issues then become debates over interpretations of the Constitution. Two of the most widely and heatedly debated aspects of the Constitution are the concepts of separation of powers and federalism.
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
In conclusion, since 1832 a lot has changed within the monarchy. Because of things such as the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and the formation of political parties, the monarchy’s political roles have greatly decreased. In addition, with the help of growing technology, the social roles of the monarch have blossomed. Through ease of travel and advances in television and radio, the monarchy can be seen and heard by people all around the world. Although the public opinion of the monarch has fluctuated greatly over the years, they always seem to bounce back and land on their feet.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of an Unwritten Constitution in the UK The UK has an unwritten constitution unlike the U.S.A. Instead Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law. It is misleading to call the British constitution unwritten; a more precise form of classification would be un-codified. This means that the British constitution has no single document, which states principles and rules of a state. However, The British constitution clearly sets out how political power is allocated and where it is legally located. The British constitution is still visible and it defines composition and powers of the main offices and institutions of the state.