The relevance of monarchy: Who needs a king?

 As new reports come in on Princess Diana’s inquest, one has to ask what all the fuss is about. Surely, Princess Diana was a highly influential person, whose support for charities was legendary (and continues on), and whose spat with the “Establishment” in the United Kingdom fractured her marriage to Prince Charles. Here then we gain a clue as to her popularity. Being the “People’s Princess”, Princess Diana’s rise to royalty from civilian life was the driving force that gained her her following, her clout in the public eye, with all the attendant consequences. Needless to say, it was this worship of Diana (as well as a drunk chauffeur/security chief) that led to her death.

What is the need for royalty in modern times? Let us discuss one important aspect of the royalty, and that is its political power.

 

There is a spectrum of the political involvement of royalty in the world. Absolute monarchies still exist in Brunei, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican City. In these places, they are considered infallible and their word is carried out as law. Other countries impose legal limitations on royal power in the form of constitutional monarchies, as observed in many European States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. A similarity in these monarchies is their succession by primogeniture, a mechanism that caused the Japanese Imperial Family a recent headache. Because tracing bloodlines is important, a certain status is given to members of the royal family by society in recognition of their closeness in succession to the reigning monarch. Through this, and given the absence of any meaningful opposition to their rule (enough to overthrow them from power), a monarchy is able to perpetuate itself in eternity. Exceptions to this are elected monarchs, such as the Pope, who is elected by the College of Cardinals in the Vatican, in a highly anticipated ceremony, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Paramount ruler (elected by and from the hereditary sultans of each state in Malaysia).

Based on the process of succession, and the resulting longer terms of a monarchy, some argue that this system of rule confers an immunity from politicking and corruption that prevail in more temporary arrangements (such as in elections). As a lasting symbol of the state, there is allegedly less tendency for others to attack the monarchy, avoiding the scandals that tarnish the reputation of a country. As a power beyond the political realm and not requiring political support, the monarchy becomes a neutral and independent arbiter of the people’s interests. It is provides stability during times of political upheaval as permanent holders of power. Being born and trained to rule, monarchs are allegedly reliable and dependable.

Most of the benefits mentioned above do not seem to be applicable in the here and now. For one, most monarchies today are constitutional, a situation that binds the monarchy (in various ways, in different countries) from any meaningful political involvement. In fact, monarchs are largely ceremonial figureheads rather than actual rulers. And when constitutional monarchs do become rulers, they have to embroil themselves in the politics of the day, favoring or disfavoring their prime ministers, and seeking to gain popular support. The arguments above apply more to absolute monarchies. One single but weighty question  for absolute rule is: can we always have an enlightened despot? History argues otherwise. Enlightened despots are rare, and rulers have always been fallible. It is even arguable that with so much subjectivity vested into one person, despite the possible existence of advisers and all, an environment is created that breeds nepotism, cronyism and corruption. (consider case studies in Tonga, and Saudi Arabia) It is no surprise that royal families are extremely rich and decadent, whose funances are even propped up by taxpayer money.

Politically, then, monarchies haven’t proven themselves to be particularly effective. How about their social aspect?

 

Monarchies retain so much social attraction even today because of their socioeconomic disparity with the public. Going around in “elite” social circles, protected by their gilded walls and their towering castles and boasting of a bloodline that goes back hundreds of years, royals enjoy an elevated social status that begets itself. That is, royal families are popular because they are royal. The public seems embroiled in cheap entertainment based on gossip and rumors, and fueled by raunchy intrusions into the royal private life. Sometimes though, that popularity extends beyond the tabloids and the paparazzi. In places that elevate a monarch’s status to that of a deity, monarchs can wield a great deal of influence on social norms and political policies by virtue of their strong public support. Thailand’s multiple coups, such as the one in 2006, have been dependent on royalty for their mandate. Recently, the King of Spain rallied his country against an attack by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on a former Spanish prime minister (his “Shut up” statement is now a huge ringtone hit)

On the other hand, and here even some royals may agree with me, the constant presence of the public eye on their every move gets to be more annoying. Royals are pressured to conform to what the public view as “royal behavior”, deviance from which is punished severely by the press (remember Prince Harry and his costume?). Scandal after scandal is published on what would otherwise be ordinary news if it weren’t for the regal factor. Social pressure may not even be tolerated by members of the royal family, causing them to cast away their title in favor of a more private life, free from the constraints that burden a prince or a princess.

But here is where Republicans become a little myopic: No one else is listened to more than Royalty. In a modern era where people have become exasperated, even fed up with the reckless and unbounded ghost statements of their political leaders, a monarchy provides the strong voice that unifies everyone. As a bastion of conservatism, the monarchy functions as a barometer by which the public can gauge their actions. As a symbol of the status quo, the monarchy is able to show people where progress is needed and galvanize them into action.

As archaic, fanciful, peculiar and old as it may seem, the concept of monarchy is still relevant today. Acting as a powerful catalyst for social change, having a king may not seem so bad at all.

British Response to Terror: Join Big Brother

For hundreds of years, Britain has been a bastion of democracy, a champion of the basic rights of people. Its advocacy in the United Nations, and in the Commonwealth has always been to free individuals from the tyranny of government. It has balanced the oxymoron of the British monarchy with the growing need for accountable governance since 1215, when King John signed the Magna Carta (the British even feel this is the best symbol of “Britishness“). A constitutional monarchy without a (written) constitution.

Ironically, Queen Elizabeth and her Princes are powerless to stop the Labor government’s incremental removal of the rights of the British people. Now, Britons are told where to smoke, and no, this not due to the infamous British sense of, umm, sensibility. The more insidious infringements, however, occur on a daily basis. An hourly one. A minute-by-minute scale. in each second of every day. That is the violation of the right to privacy.

Gordon Brown

It is not surprising, though, that the former Exchequer, the Right Honourable Dr Gordon Brown MP would want a more meticulous view of his subjects. The new British Royalty at 10 Downing St continues to pursue the oppressive policies of Tony Blair and his government. In fact, Brown wishes to promote “new, tougher” security measures in the same vein. That’s more surveillance, more detention for new arrivals, more strip searches, more limitations on movement, more “security.”

How has it come to this? A government now watching its own people. Trolling its citizens. Subjecting them to a 24-hour watch not unlike prisoners in their home. UK has turned into its very own Big Brother House. There are CCTV cameras everywhere (1 for every 14th Briton). Overhead, satellite pictures are taken of “suspicious” citizens. Transactions are recorded in secret rooms. Sounds like 1984 all over again. Sounds like an oppressive regime.

What’s alarming is that this is happening in Britain. A First World country. A democratic nation. Where are protests? Where is civil society? Is it now un-British to defend your own rights? Okay, there may be pockets of resistance to this. But we do see more of that happening in Third World countries where rights are even more limited, where people cherish their freedoms.

 

Maybe citizens think these measures are warranted. After numerous security threats, including an attempted car bombing in London, you’d think that the British were jittery enough… but the real word here is paranoid. People are scared. And fear is pushing them in the wrong direction: searching for wolves among the sheep. They might even want to search the empty, ghost flights of the British Airways.

When a democratic nation concedes to the terror, and is driven by fright, then these terrorists have achieved their goal. Now that’s real terrorism.