As mentioned in my previous post that I do not agree with some things that influencers say/think/believe in. Therefore, I'm continue to write this "mini-blogpost-series" called "In defense of...".
This week, its about my defense of Constitutional Monarchy(CM) In the aftermath of the late Queen Elizabeth II's passing, many "republican LARPers or champagne republicans" from around the world come out and brazenly bash or criticise the British Royal Family(and by extension the idea of CM itself)
This includes prominent social media influencers like Heidi and Toby who are actually good in providing knowledge info & tips about crypto but is absolutely naïve and clueless about politics. My advise to them is to stick to promoting crypto & financial freedom and dont spread/influence others things that you are not even well versed in(eg. Politics)
A few of Toby's controversial political beliefs:
Before I even start my post, I would like to share more about my personal beliefs. Yes I do support cryptos and any other potentially useful scientific discoveries and innovative tech(AI, Data analytics, Nuclear Fusion etc...) but politically I'm a realist(albeit libertarian leaning). And nothing worries me more than the survival of human civilization given the current state of events happening across the globe. I view political matters using the framework of Realpolitik not due to some silly ideology(eg. republicanism, Ancap). More about this in a future post. Do let me know if you want me to post more about this.
Now, back to the topic, in case you don't know what a CM is: it is a non-elected monarch whom shares power with a democratically elected government. Modern constitutional monarchies in western Europe include the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Monaco, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Sweden. In Asia, Japan, Thailand, Brunei and Malaysia are constitutional monarchies with the latter 2 rulers being called "Sultan".
Historically, CMs also include the following nations: France(as early as 1789 to 1870), Germany(1871 to 1918), China(1906-1911), Russia(1906-1917), Portugal(1822 to 1910), Italy(till 1946), Greece(till 1973) and many others
As I have researched through the years, there are many reasons why CMs are one of the best forms of governments for nation states. But to summarize, the most significant reasons are the following:
- The monarch provides continuity and consistency in government.
In a CM, the ruler can remain in power for many years. The line of succession is clear, and everyone knows who will become the king or queen if the current ruler abdicates, becomes unfit to rule or dies. The monarch’s continual rule provides legislative and policy consistency over long periods of time.
However, in the Constitutional Republican model of the United States, presidents can change as often as every four years. Even when a president is in office for eight years, there is not enough time to enact and maintain long-term policies that can impact a nation. Policies can be overturned when the majority party changes. For example, the Trump administration has effectively reversed the United States federal government’s position on environmental protection even though his infamous tenure was a short 4 years
- The CM structure of the government provides political unity & stability.
In a CM, elected and appointed officials change, but the monarch remains for life. In times of emergency, such as war(WW2), civil strife(Thailand political protests) or even the recent pandemic, these governments generally pull together and remain stable. A king or queen provides a continual link to the past and elected or appointed officials to know they have to answer the monarch.
CMs also tend to stay centrist in policy and government and radical shifts to a political left or right are generally avoided. The representatives and their parties are more willing to compromise because each understands the monarch will be required to approve any policy or legislation. For example, in the recent Swedish elections, its expected that the Centre-Right coalition will likely form the next Swedish government as it was popularly elected
In countries where all leaders are elected, this kind of compromise is difficult, if not impossible. Newly proposed legislation often has prolonged periods of debate and discussion between political factions. The lack of stable policy causes many proposed bills to falter or disappear. In the United States, approximately 90% of bills “die” before they ever leave a committee.
Most importantly of all, CMs are also less likely to be overtaken by a coup than most other forms of government. The separation of government between the monarch and the elected representatives offers a double layer of stability. Through my years of amateur research, I have yet to know of any example about any nation with a CM being overtaken by a coup.
- Monarchs are trained to lead from birth.
In a CM, the line of succession is clear. Members of the royal family are trained in government and diplomacy from birth. Even young monarchs understand their duty and are trained to rule. (Eg. Prince William & Princess Kate of the UK). This training and education can provide a ruler who is well-prepared to lead their country.
However, in the Republican model, elected presidents of any country rarely have lifelong training to lead. Five United States presidents had never been elected to a public office before becoming president – Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Donald Trump. Jimmy Morales, the president of Guatemala, also had no political experience. With no monarch to guide them, some of these rulers have encountered overwhelming problems with governance.
- CMs have more money available to apply to the economy and public programs.
The cost associated with holding a presidential election nationally and "electing" a new president and Cabinet can be incredibly high esp. in the US. However, by avoiding these costs, constitutional monarchies can put more money toward their people and their economies. Of the above listed CMs, only one (Norway) does not provide universal health care. Even so, Norway still fares better in terms of development than any other republic using UNHDI metrics. Free or low-cost college is also available in some of these countries.
The following might be an outdated budget calculation. A presidential election in the United States costs roughly $2 billion, about four times the late Queen Elizabeth’s estimated private wealth. Installing a new president, cabinet members, and representatives can cost an additional $4 billion. Such high stakes and costs are the reason that the politically the US is a cesspit of corruption amongst the developed nations.
- CMs support national and cultural identities.
People tend to identify with their government and its policies. The stability and continuity of a CM promote a sense of solid national and cultural identity. This is something in which I treasure as an avid fan of history and of the nation state. For example, the UK’s current monarch, King Charles III, is the king of all Commonwealth countries across the world, from the UK to Canada and even the South Pacific. Each country has significant power to self-govern, but every person in the Commonwealth identifies with the monarch, the economic, cultural
and political ties with the central administration.
When political leaders change frequently, it is harder for people to identify with the current leader and their policy. Regardless of their satisfaction with the current political situation, people cannot last long enough to develop a national sense of cultural identity.
- The monarch has discretionary reserve powers.
The reserve powers are given to a monarch to help to maintain accountability and stability in government. These powers are discretionary and can only be used within constitutional limits and boundaries. For example, the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand once appealed to the Thai people for political stability during the Thai political crisis years ago. As a result, Thailand managed to have some respite of peace in more recent years.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/thailand-king-bhumibol-appeal-people
- Legislation can be enacted faster in a CM
In governments controlled entirely by elected officials, party division can lead to long periods of controversy over legislation before a vote. The compromise part could also be extremely slow. Again for instance, in 1964, the United States took more than six months to agree on an important Civil Rights bill and even so racial problems are still present in US society.
The lower level of the political divide in a CM leads to legislation being passed more easily and quickly than in republican governments. Everyone in the government understands the need to compromise and fairly represent the people rather than their own party’s interests. In addition, a bill can be expedited to pass very quickly. However, with those in mind, Brexit was a recent exception to this general rule.
As with many other systems of government, there are disadvantages to a CM. But you probably are already aware some of them with your recent exposure to these Republican/Socialist/Anarchist LARPers on social media.
The moral this series is to never blindly trust anything that people, including influencers, post/comment/tweet on social media. Instead, always question and verify them with factual evidence.
Alright. That's all for this week's post. The main source used for this article is the following: https://www.ablison.com/pros-and-cons-of-constitutional-monarchy/
You the viewer may read the other advantages and disadvantages that are not mentioned in this post and form your opinion on CM.
Thank you for reading this week's installment of the "In Defense of..." mini-series