Thursday, April 16, 2020

Why is terrorism such a common feature of the modern world Essays

Although the U.K. has perhaps the best-known monarchy in the world, it is far from unique. Within Europe, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain also function as constitutional monarchies, as do Japan and Thailand within Asia. Hereditary rulers in Africa and the Middle East (e.g. Morocco, Lesotho, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) still retain a great deal of real power. Are these Heads of State anachronisms who should be swept away in the spirit of true democracy, or do they have much to commend them at a time when the leaders of many new republics still struggle to find popular legitimacy? ProsConsThe concept of monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers (as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example) these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections (e.g. in the U.K. if no party has an overall majority in parliament) or of political decision-making (e.g. the U.K. and Belgium again, where the monarch has to sign legislation before it becomes law)? Monarchy may also be used to prop up other unjustifiable elements within the constitution, e.g. the House of Lords in the U.K.Constitutional monarchy is a very effective political system. A hereditary Head of State acts as an important element of continuity within a democratic system. The real powers (as opposed to purely theoretical ones ? no British ruler has actually vetoed an Act of Parliament since c1720) of European monarchs are negligible. But as unelected figures above the poli tical conflicts of the day, they retain an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity (very important in Belgium, for example). In Britain their right ?to advise, encourage and warn? the Prime Minister of the day has acted as a check against overly radical policies, in Spain King Juan Carlos actually faced down a military coup in the 1980s.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.Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation?s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shape d it. 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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.