"Why would we want a Queen anyway?" I hear you ask, well my reasoning is this.
Republics elect all of their leaders and although this is 100% democratic, how much of the electorate would give 100% trust in those leaders?
Elected officials come from a variety of backgrounds and interests with differing motivations for their job. They often have external business interests and are influenced by external partners and take those interests and influences into office with them. In addition, most political parties are bankrolled by private individuals and companies which I am sure any sane person would agree, would expect something in return.Personally, I find this to be a basic (perhaps THE basic) form of corruption. Yet we all know about it and happily accept it.
I am sure anyone would agree, an elected official is NOT incorruptible, far from it in fact.
In Britain, the Queen is at the top of the chain, figuratively. Her position is as a national symbol, people swear allegiance to her, (at least new citizens do) just as Americans swear allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. In this case, Britain's national symbol has a personality and can walk and talk, unlike a flag.
The Queen has been groomed for the role of Queen, she is politically neutral and cannot vote. Any political views she may have are effectively neutralised by her position. She cannot do anything about it.
An Elected official simply cannot have the same political neutrality when it comes to the good of the people, nor would we want them to, or they would be useless.
The Queen has been conditioned to have the interests of the public at heart and although she does not have any real primary power, she can yield real influence over any current government in the interests of the people and she does have 'reserve' powers, just incase the government collapsed, or the Prime Minister did something illegal.
As a Scot, I used to hate the Queen, I saw her as a rich old English lady who does nothing except sit on her arse and soak up taxpayers money. In recent years I have re-evaluated this thinking and now I suggest the opposite.
(For the record I am not a raging Royalist, I do not have a poster of the Queen on my bedroom wall nor do I own any kind of royal memorabilia. I am not a Rangers fan and I am not Protestant. I don't subscribe to any of that stiff upper lip posh nonsense either but I digress..)
Although the Queen is not elected, she effectively provides the same role as a president. In many countries, such as Ireland, Israel and Russia the President has no real dealings with the every day running of the country, they instead have a largely ceremonial role They still have influence over those who do run the country, just as the Queen does.
I would rather have someone as a leader or icon who has been conditioned for the role from birth. Someone who has a neutral view over politics and exists to serve the people, rather than an all powerful politician who sits in the all powerful role of president for a few years before moving on.
Imagine if George W Bush was destined to be the US President from birth. Imagine if he had spent every day being groomed and educated to fill that one role. I reckon in such a case, he could well have been the greatest American President of all time.
I trust the Queen, not because of her personality (I do not know her after all, she could be a complete cow!) but because of her conditioning and upbringing, I would find it very hard to trust an elected President which only speaks for a % of the population.
In Britain, the Prime Minister visits with the Queen once a week to discuss current issues in the country, meetings are completely confidential and the Prime Minister can relax knowing that none of what is said shall ever be leaked to the media, or passed on to a political opponent.
I do not know of any other national leader in the world who has such a unique service or confidant.
The Queen cost each Brit 66p (about $1.00USD ) in 2007. How much would a President cost?
In Britain, our armed forces pledge allegiance only to the Queen and never to the current government. This is a safeguard against potential coups. If a major civil crisis ever ensued, the Queen could act in the interest of the British people, exerting influence over the government and armed forces, again I would rather she did so over a temporary president in the event of a serious crisis should the PM and current government become unstable.
Ultimately, if the Queen thought that the public was extremely pissed off with the current PM and it got bad enough, she could fire him. (Another awesome safeguard)
This has never happened in modern time and I doubt it ever would due to the extremely stable nature of our Parliamentary Democracy.
In conclusion, my opinion is that the Monarchy is relevant and modern to Britain, but perhaps not to Canada, New Zealand or Australia. Its up to those countries to decide if they wish to be Republics. I'm sure the the Queen would never try to stop those countries from becoming Republics anyway, in fact she would be unable to do so since Canada, Australia and New Zealand are independent sovereign countries (and members of the UN) with no actual ties to the UK beyond tradition and ceremony, although the Governor General who acts for the Queen do hold Reserve Powers and can also fire the government, if need be.
Britain works well with a Constitutional Monarchy, Britain is still a very powerful and influential country. Britain is modern and democratic.
Only ignorance of the Queens role provides for anger and cynicism, I don't know what it will be like when she is gone, perhaps Charlie-boy will make a great King, maybe not.
long live the Queen.
Queen Elizabeth II Desktop Wallpaper >>
More Reading on this topic:
No comments:
Post a Comment