Elizabeth II has died, which isn't news to most people given the global media blitz. I'm not really that interested in this development, I typed up a short bit and got bored after about three paragraphs. What's more interesting to me though is the concept of constitutional monarchy in general and its role in governance. Viewed from the outside it's easy to write off as just another anachronism but currently there are over 30 nations with variations on this system, so it must have something going for it.
I've been active in republican circles for a few years, I rarely bother to bring up this topic here, as I assume its one of the few topics that would have universal agreement that all aristocratic systems should be shown the door. But given that I can't escape it for at least another week I might as well take the opportunity to get this down. Arguments from supporters of monarchy are usually not much to worry about, they tend to come in two varieties, a strange D&D - or Game of Thrones if you're more familiar - fantastical traditionalism or just nakedly bizarre sycophancy.
I've encountered one exception, and its the constitutional monarchy makes for stable governance. I'll let Emma Ashford senior fellow at the Stimson Center (whatever that is) outline it.
A constitutional monarchy is one of the best systems of government available. The monarch has little-to-no real power, but fills the role of figurehead and acts as a constitutional block, making it harder for demagogues and would-be dictators to abuse their power.
Why this definition? Honestly, just because its the most recent version I've come across. I'm not exaggerating when I say I've seen variations of this argument over a hundred times. Usually there will be a link to an article or graph showing the standards of living in Western Europe. Essentially the argument is that out of all the various systems of government that the human race has tried across the globe and throughout time, the one that's delivered the best results have been constitutional monarchies.
The annoying thing to this argument is that there is some truth to it. I think it's undeniable that this system has strong advantages, but those advantages are not for the people or subjects, the benefits lay with those who make up the governors of society. Regarding the system used in the UK and other European nations as they're the ones I'm most familiar with, the Crown is an important anchor for the system. Most critics of monarchy call these kings and queens political figureheads, and in most cases this is correct though many critics jump to the conclusion that this makes them largely superficial and can be ignored if the individuals in the fancy hats are behaving themselves,which I feel is a mistake.
In my view I believe these figureheads are key features of the wider political order and have proven to be invaluable in buffering them from systemic opposition. You may think I'm referring to their popularity, but I think that's only part of it. The popularity of the crown is the work of propaganda, not just through the media but through all branches of society. This level of manufactured (I do not mean fake here) popularity can be achieved for political leaders of all kinds. I've seen Americans treat current and former Presidents with the same reverence British royalists treat the Windsors, and the French have a complex relationship to De Gaulle in a way that's not dissimilar to dynastic legacies. And practically every dictator is criticised for trying to get their people to love and worship them.
And this propaganda can also back fire, there have been several occasions where the Crown was extremely unpopular in British history, Victoria had to dodge several assassins and the death of princess Dianna and that infamous televised interview with Prince Andrew stick out as obvious examples.
In the UK the crown is officially an unelected, and unaccountable but quiet head of state, while the legislative and executive functions of the state are handled by parliament. This means that all the really unpopular actions of government, taxes, war, service cuts, laws etc, are handled by the elected politicians with the Crown providing a rubber stamp function. This essentially channels discontent at parliament since they're the ones causing problems while the rest of the British system appears to be functioning as intended. And since parliament is elected the easiest and quickest way to address pressing current issues isn't fundamental reform or revolutionary action, its voting for the opposition to replace the Prime Minister. Or at least that's what appears to be the easiest and quickest way to get things done in this system.
It's also worth keeping in mind how the UK monarchy became constitutional. Originally the Kingdoms of England and Scotland had very powerful Kings with little in the way of checks and balances and sharing of power. Events forced these two kingdoms and the later combined kingdom to adapt and make room. Magna Carta, the Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution were noticeable flash points that set the course for constitutional rule. But these moves while popular with the commoners were directed and controlled largely by other powerful groups, the Barons and the landed gentry, and the slower push to strengthen parliament at the expense of the aristocrats over the 1700s-1900s was pushed heavily by the rising class of industrialists. So it doesn't really surprised me that a political process dominated by these groups produced a system where they more or less coexist and overlap.
Now I don't think this is the only reason why Norway and the UK and the Netherlands are more politically stable than other countries, but I think its a factor in explaining inertia. To take an anecdotal example, I don't like paying taxes and in the UK the monarch is the head of the tax services the HM in HMRC, but if the monarchy is abolished the tax system would still work as before, so my best bet is to support the dismantling of the whole social and economic order and support the creation of a new one, but this is difficult, takes a long time and is very dangerous and dependent on the involvement of others. I can also vote for a rival party with a taxation policy I find less egregious.
This inertia gives the system some time to sink in and develop, which adds tradition and custom to the tools of governance. I don't find either particularly compelling but quite a few people do respond positively to both, and after a few years have passed there's a strong impression of inevitability that's very difficult to counter. I don't just mean in questions of how the state should be run and how its head is chosen, I've found this to be the case generally when trying to advocate for change of any kind. If what we're opposing has been around for a length of time the biggest obstacle to getting people onboard is this sense of inevitability, even if they already agree that change is needed.
I know I'm speaking generally here, despite this pressure valve there have been times when many constitutional monarchies have faced turmoil, and some republics have enjoyed long stretches of social passivity. Despite being the best argument monarchists have it still has its flaws.
I'm not really interested in a political republic so much as I'm interested in challenging reactionary ideology and the support structures of the political order. And since the land I live in and a large chunk of the planet and its population live under this system I think it's worth exploring.
I don't wish to give the impression that this is a perfect tool for statecraft. Despite how long lived many of these kingdoms are they have their flaws and vulnerabilities. By maintaining aristocratic relations the UK and others are declaring that they as societies have accepted that some humans are born to special positions of power and stewardship. Which is probably an added incentive to keep these expenses relics around for the wider political establishment. Republican capitalism has to rely on the myth of meritocracy alone, rewards come to those who work hard. The UK uses an uncomfortable mix of both ideals, when critics of the royals get too noisy to ignore a common defence is a loud claim that the royals are in fact hard working, which may or may not be true, but it raises complications over their wealth and privileges and why exactly they should be entitled to them. Are they entitled to palatial estates because they're special, or because they work so hard? If it's the latter why not abolish titles and let them keep earning, if the former why have them work at all?
Contradictions and frictions like that are why criticism from even the bourgeois politicians never goes away no matter how popular individual monarchs are.
I think the overall role and its effect is why despite record dissatisfaction with the royal family in the UK the main republican groups have failed to have much of a presence, and why their positions are so trivial sounding. Republic effectively just wants to replace the Crown with a European style presidency, with the rest of the British system remaining as is. Why bother dedicating time and resources for years to such a minor change? And why don't these groups commit themselves to more substantial reforms?
Thanks to France we know that the republic alone is not sufficient to build a society free of inequalities, exploitation and violence. So to narrow their scopes to minor constitutional tinkering shows they are either are fine with the fundamental injustices of modern capitalist society and are not interested or capable of playing a role in the struggles for a better way of life.
Monarchy regardless of its flavour is incompatible with communism so any serious move towards it would have to be anti-monarchist to some degree. It is possible to be a republican without being a communist but I don't really see the appeal.
Does any of this actually matter?
In a nutshell these groups also get in the way. It's quite frustrating really, I think the response from much of the British left and the trade union officials is a good example of the practical effects of this system. Many MPs and political commentators were quick to publicly express sympathy and condolences and the CWU and RMT have cancelled upcoming strike action, and Extinction Rebellion called off a demonstration. I don't know if all of the people here are personally royalists or not, and a fear of unpopularity may be the main motivator, but I also think an awareness that to challenge the crown is an escalation of their activities on more radical ground. The TUC unions and Labour's left try to confine their action and disputes to limited fights with private companies and the government ministries that are connected to those industries. And even then the focus is on applying pressure to get leverage at negotiations.
It is bizarre in the extreme to see people whose jobs and identities are supposed to be about representation and support of the workers and vulnerable in society prostrate themselves before institutional wealth and social hierarchy but simply put, they don't really care that much how the state is arranged and so don't want to risk undermining themselves by getting into a wider spat over how power is exercised even on this limited plane.
Its less that the TUC, Labour et al should be diehard Jacobins* and more that this country has a very large and quite well connected labour movement the vast majority of which is perfectly fine with things carrying on as they are overall. And the lack of serious challenge to the Crown even on the rare occasion it becomes an active impediment to what this movement does like to do is a pretty good example of this crippling limitation.
 |
| Bastani's response to the massive backlash is that this comment was value neutral and not a contradiction with his stated republican views. I struggle to read it in that light, and if that was the intention rewriting would be the better option. It also makes an equation ala Louis XIV "I am the state" which I wouldn't go as far. |
On paper the Crown should be the most vulnerable part of the whole political establishment. Even by the logic of capitalism rewarding a few families large sums of money, land, and access to government because four hundred years ago their ancestor married someone else, just doesn't make sense. Especially when you consider that most royals in the world today are capitalists in their own right. And yet frequently the reality is that it proves to be quite resilient.
So, what is to be done? Well, focusing on the Crown to exclusion of all else, the way of Republic doesn't seem to have born much fruit, but on the other hand ignoring it as a relic or minor institution as is common amongst the more radical parts also doesn't seem to have worked out very well. I suppose I'd argue directly challenging it where it has an impact and keeping it in the wider criticism of the whole political and economic system**. Not because I believe a thriving republican movement can springboard a revolution of the proletariat, but because they simply are part of the wider political and economic system along with transnational corporations, land owners, state run industries, etc.
Essentially try to make it the vulnerable point it should be but as a wedge to expose the rest of the system instead of settling for a re-enactment of the French Convention.
I think the Class War Federation had an approach that was close to what I'm thinking of. They didn't focus on the royal family but would produce material and actions when it seemed relevant.
_________________________________________________________
*my years in republican circles have largely been disappointing, but they did mean I met several key figures in Britain's left, so I can say with certainty that quite a few of them as private individual think this whole blue blood thing its nonsense,
**I haven't really touched on this much but the modern aristocracy in the UK are capitalists in their own right, owning land and companies and I know from experience with my local Earl they use their privileges and status as much as possible in pursuing their business interests
No comments:
Post a Comment