Charles III’s automatic accession to the British throne at the age of 74 provides ample reason for a re-examination of the claims of republicanism for these islands, one of which can boast of having adopted it unilaterally about a hundred years ago. So which would be better for Britain from now on: a monarch or a president? Does it matter?
Almost all of the world’s existing monarchies are functioning democracies. To these democratic ones – Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Spain, Japan and UK– can be added others such as Lesotho, Eswatini, Brunei, Thailand and the Gulf states.
The rest of the world is divided between republics and special cases. Some of these cases are what used to be called dominions viz Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as small island dependencies, for whom the head of state is whoever is the current king of England; some special cases are dependencies like French Guiana or Guam, or totally unique like Switzerland or the USA. Yet another is the Holy See.
Some countries such as France have presidents who are both heads of state and heads of government. In countries where the president is the titular head of state with minimal functions, such as Ireland, Israel, India, Italy and Germany, it is the separate head of government (prime minster) who exercises executive power and responsibility.
This important distinction is sometimes lost on voters whenever they are being asked whether they want a republican constitution or a monarchical one. Those voting for a republic had better do so in the knowledge that the proposed post of president might be filled either by a retired political hack promoted as national symbol or by a powerful chief executive politician with an activist agenda. Those voters in a plebiscite who fail to grasp this distinction risk letting the monarchical model ‘come through’ and win by default.
The present monarchical model covers a number of states and territories, all that remains from the colonial era, ranging from the great dominions such as Canada (population 38.25m) down to Tristan da Cunha (population 264). They acknowledge the kingship of whoever is recognised as the current chief descendant of Egbert (died 839) first king of all England, grandfather of Alfred the Great. Over the course of recent decades this formal acknowledgement has successfully modulated from royalty as the apex of a pyramidal structure of class deference to a narrative of media-fuelled stardom where those who embody the institution do so as members of the Firm under constant ‘democratic’ scrutiny and judgment that knows no limits of nationality, evaluation or taste.
At best, those who are generally supportive of the institution of monarchy see it as the embodiment of national identity, in which they can take unimpeachable pride. The taste for historical majesty is fortified by carefully arranged ceremonial, ribbon cutting, media coverage and ‘meet the people’ engagement. Thus is the royal brand renewed by continual marketing and retooling, and any lapses expunged.
There have been problems, however, caused by the heir to the throne. In the 1890s the heir was Prince Albert Victor, who predeceased his father Edward VII after a shortened life beset by innuendo and allegations about his sexuality. It is likely that he would not have turned out to be an adequate occupant of the imperial throne if contemporary gossip is anything to go by. His grandson David Prince of Wales succeeded his father George V as King Edward VIII in 1936 but under pressure from the establishment of the time abdicated in less than a year in order to marry a divorced American socialite. His youngest brother Prince John was an epileptic who died in his teens. Prince Talal of Jordan succeeded as king in 1951 but was overthrown by parliament a year later after it became clear that he was schizophrenic.
As for presidencies there are advantages and drawbacks for both the executive and non-executive models. While it is true that non-executive heads of state are often retired political hacks or just nonentities there are occasional exceptions who are widely admired (eg Mary Robinson, Sandro Pertini, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi).
They are almost all term-limited. This means that the end date can be foreseen; the same cannot be said of the holder of a job for life.
In the end, a nation’s head of state, whether presidential or monarchical, embodies in one person the long and contested history of the nation with all that that describes, even geography, conquest and struggle. The accumulated continuity of this history is based on layers of achievement like so many strata banding the surface of a rock outcrop, including the hard-won constitution and its metaphorical guardian, even change of dynasty and the words of the national anthem.
Ultimately it is whatever the nation state feels more comfortable with that defines the choice of type of head. King Egbert would have approved.
Rimbovalia 