It is a vital part of the United Kingdom that makes British democracy more responsive to the concerns of citizens at little or negative cost to British taxpayers. Americans have an unfortunate tendency to get huffy about Britain's superior political system. We don't want our silly revolution to have been in vain, after all. But on this occasion, at least, let's put our grievances aside and celebrate Queen Elizabeth II for sustaining one of the world's more important democratic institutions for more than 63 remarkable years.
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all.
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.
Long live Queen Elizabeth: Why monarchies are better than republics. Reddit Pocket Flipboard Email. In other words, they're likelier to change the government without any democratic input at all: Dylan Matthews before I knew how to make charts properly Worse, Tavits, in her book Presidents With Prime Ministers , finds that directly elected presidents make the public less politically engaged, depressing turnout in parliamentary elections by about 7 percent.
The cost of monarchy is low Opponents of the British royal family often point to its expense as a reason to abolish it. God bless the British monarchy, long may it reign The British monarchy is not an anachronism. Delivered Fridays. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email required. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page. The concept of monarchy is also inegalitarian.
Even if the monarchy retains little or no political power, its presence sustains the traditional class system, sending out a message that who you are born matters more than what you make of yourself. This can stifle aspirations and lead to a culture of deference, where entrepreneurialism and individual ability are not valued.
A system of royal honours may be used to tie achievers into the traditional social structures, making radical social and political change less possible. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing.
The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies.
The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. Security costs are also very high. Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements.
Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Instead monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits.
Royal families have become national embarrassments. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned.
How many people travelling abroad like to find their Head of State, and by extension their whole country, is a source of much amusement to foreigners? Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency.
It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can.
The argument then becomes why should we retain the Queen as our symbolic figurehead when our nation has functioned with independence for such a long time? A Republic refers to a system of government under which the people who govern the nation are elected with a member of that nation serving as a Head of State, as opposed to a Monarch. Historically in a Constitutional Monarchy, ruling parties inherit their power as opposed to being elected, and this is the main conceptual difference between the two models.
If Australia were to become a Republic, this would no longer be required. There are various different models that Australia could adopt.
0コメント