Constitutional monarchy

A constitutional monarchy is a form ofgovernment established under a constitutional system which acknowledges a hereditary or elected monarch as head of state . Modern constitutionalmonarchies usually implement the concept of trias politica , and havethe monarch as the (symbolic) head of the executive branch .

Today, constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy , and represents a compromise between theories of sovereignty which placesovereignty in the hands of the people, and those that see a role for tradition in the theory of government. Though the king orqueen may be regarded as the government's symbolic head, it is the PrimeMinister , whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, who actually governs the country.

Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies, this has not always historically been thecase. There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy , Japan and Spain , or those in which the government is run as a military dictatorship , as was the case in Thailand .

Queen Rania of Jordan hascommented that the difference between ruling a monarchy and ruling a democracy is that, in the latter, an error costs at most thenext election, whereas a monarch might well lose their head.

Origins

The concept of constitutional monarchy owes its origin to the absolute monarchies of the later Middle Ages , wheregovernmental authority was exercised by the monarch and his (or in rare occasions her) government.

The development of popular participation in democracy saw power shifting to governments selected from and answerable tolegislative assemblies and parliaments, producing more democratic systems of governments in which the monarch 'reigns but doesnot rule'.

Codified and uncodified constitutions

Most modern constitutional monarchies operate under a written fundamental or organic law known as a constitution , which strictly defines the roles possessed by the head of state, theexecutive, legislature and judiciary. As well as the strict definitions, restrictions exist as to the manner by which thesedefinitions may be changed, with constitutionalamendments being passed either by plebiscite (also called referendum ), by weighted majorities in parliament or by the voting through of anamendment by two successive parliaments, with a general election in between. Among constitutional monarchies possessing codified constitutions are:

• Australia
• Belgium
• Canada
• Denmark
• Japan
• Malaysia
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Spain
• Sweden

The former monarchies in Italy and Greece also operated under codified constitutions.

The United Kingdom is an example where there is an uncodified constitution . Unlike many countries, there is nosingle document that defines out the structure and power of government. Instead Parliament possesses the ability by means of an ordinary law passed by a simple majority to change, vary,empower or abolish an institution of state, including the monarchy. In the United Kingdom, a collection of written laws,unwritten conventions , the reserve power , the Royal Prerogative and traditions shape the relationship between the various institutions of state; themonarchy, the Crown, the government, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the Judiciary. In the absence of any singleconstitutional document, these together are described as the UK's uncodified constitution.

The theoretical head of the executive

In a constitutional monarchy the post of the head of state is usuallypassed (by some form of primogeniture ) within a royal family . The head of state is normally the theoretical head of theexecutive, producing phrases like Her Majesty's Government. In some countries the monarch (or in states in the Commonwealth of Nations a governor-general) may chair thecabinet, though they do not play a role in policy formation. In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the monarch may havea right of access to all government documentation, as well as a detailed briefing from his or her Prime Minister. However somemodern monarchical constitutions exclude the monarch from any participation in government, eg, the King of Sweden and the Emperorof Japan, though in the former case he receives detailed briefings and chairs certain cabinet meetings. Nevertheless, both stillqualify to be called "constitutional monarchs".

It is said in constitutional monarchies that the monarch "reigns but does not rule." Most modern constitutional monarchies owetheir origins to systems in which the monarch not merely reigned but governed, as in the absolute monarchies which replaced aristocratic systems in the Renaissance . In theorythe legislative assembly and the cabinet may or may not be democratically elected or democratically accountable, but isusually democratically elected.

A practical example: Britain's Elizabeth II and Governments

In the United Kingdom many important governmental actions are done'on behalf of' the Queen Elizabeth II or she exercises her powers at the direction of the Prime Minister. Theseare generally things which remain within the Royal Prerogative. These powers are diverse: for example they include (a)appointment of Bishops in the Church of England (b) the power to appoint a Government (c) call and dismiss Parliament (d) declare war (e) appoint members of the House of Lords (f) carry out all criminal prosecutions (g) give medals (h) control all the armed forces (i)control police forces (j) pass (or refuse to pass) Acts ofParliament (k) appoint judges and (l) to pardon (which was material under the Tudors , and is the basis of the mechanism for directing the appointmentof Bishops ). However, such activities are not (generally) done by her directly and werethe Queen to carry out these functions independent of Parliament she wouldprecipitate a constitutional crisis . In addition,historically it has been held that the Queen cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence or be required to give testimony incourt.

Nevertheless, the monarch still has important and useful functions. The nineteenth century British constitutional writer, Walter Bagehot , described the monarch having

'the right to be consulted, the right to advise and the right to warn '. Queen Elizabeth II meetsher prime minister every Tuesday evening for a confidential audience, at which she and her prime minister discuss matters ofstate. The longer a reign, the greater the degree of experience a monarch has, particularly as she receives copies of all statedocumentation, all cabinet memoranda, reports from British ambassadors worldwide, security service intelligence, etc. AParliamentary Committee was told in the early 1970s that Queen Elizabeth spends three hours daily 'doing the boxes' (ie, readingstate papers sent to her from all departments of state). Sir John Peck, on being appointed British ambassador to Senegal , said that when Kissing Hands (theformal name of the appointment procedure) he received a more perceptive analysis of African and Senegalese politics from QueenElizabeth than from any government official, based on her personal experiences on state visits, briefing documents andknowledge of African leaders, experiences that desk-bound officials, no matter how theoretically knowledgeable, had neverhad.

In the mid 1970s, for example, Queen Elizabeth's belief that contacts between a British official, Lord Grenville, and theGovernment of Rhodesia were worth pursuing, shaped the policy of then Labourcabinet. Grenville's report mentioned some signs of movement. The Labour cabinet saw the scale of the movement as tooinsignificant to warrant further exploration. However Queen Elizabeth, who had ten years continuous experience of theRhodesian issue (unlike the ministers who had only a relatively small degree of experience, having only come to power in theearly 1970s), observed how any sign of movement was a change from the lack of movement present previously. The Labourministers paid heed to her privately expressed observation (that followed a conversation she had had with James Callaghan at a state banquet for the Italian president) and maintainedthe initial contacts. These contacts over a number of years finally led to the Lancaster Houseconference that established Zimbabwe . James Prior, a minister in the subsequent Conservative Party government, wrote of how the'intoxicating mix' of the Queen and the Foreign Secretary, LordCarrington kept Margaret Thatcher from abandoning the earliercontacts between the previous Labour government of James Callaghan and the Rhodesian government.

In early 2003, as the Labour government of Tony Blair pondered whether toenter into a war with Saddam Hussein , Queen Elizabeth was theonly senior governmental figure still in office who had had experience of the Suez Crisis in the late 1950s, and who as a result could mention to Blair observations on the nature of theSuez debacle and lessons to be learned from it, in deciding on whether to go to war with Saddam . It is not known what comments Queen Elizabeth made to the Prime Minister, but few doubted but thatshe would give the benefit of her observations (having been monarch at the time, she had had access to all the then governmentdocumentation and memoranda, as well as having been a confidante of the then Prime Minister Anthony Eden and his cabinet) and that the Prime Minister would take her observations very seriously.Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952, meaning that she could give to Tony Blair observations and advice based on observationsand advice given to her by every prime minister back to Sir WinstonChurchill and including Anthony Eden , Harold Macmillan , Alec Douglas-Home , Harold Wilson , EdwardHeath , James Callaghan , Margaret Thatcher and John Major , as well as thecomments of hundreds of ministers since 1952.

However, this access that the Queen has to the highest levels of government has been questioned in recent years. It is pointedout that while the current monarch has many years experience, the monarch has not always, and will not always have. For example,on what could the Queen have advised or warned Churchill at the beginning of her reign? This arguement is easily countered,simply recognising that a monarch's training begins at birth. The Queen had studied and worked under the guidance of her fatherfor years before finally acceeding to the throne.

Republicans have argued that what advice and warnings the Queen gives Prime Ministers are unaccountable and secretive.Furthermore the case is made that as an unelected figurehead the Queen should keep out of politics.

Other monarchs

Other monarchs possess similar experience and perrogatives, though none with the same length of service or degree of activeparticipation as Queen Elizabeth II. Queen Margrethe IIof Denmark chairs state council meetings and has done so since 1972 , meaning that sheis intimately aware of all government decision taking and is in a position to offer practical advice. The late King Baudouin of the Belgians had experience from the early 1950s to hisdeath in the early 1990s. In a country divided between two communities, some said that Baudouin was the only Belgian inBelgium.

The successful escape to England of the Norwegian king Haakon VII and his government from the German invasion prevented the establishment of a legitimategovernment and forced a burdensome military occupation on Hitler . His son,the late Olav V of Norway was monarch from the 1950s till his deathin 1990 but had as Crown Prince an involvement in the Norwegian Privy Council dating back to 1922. Generations of governments and governmentministers listened attentively to his observations.

Sweden's Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden , though nolonger intimately involved in government since the constitutional Instrument of Government (of 1974 ) abolished the monarch'sactive governmental role, gets frequent briefings from the Swedish cabinet en masse. After his role in moving Spain fromFranco's dictatorship to a modern parliamentary democracy, and most strikingly in his central role in stopping a coup d'etat inthe early 1980s , few ignore King Juan Carlos of Spain .

During the American-led occupation period of Japan following World War 2, the JapaneseEmperor was stripped of all authority and became one of the world's weakest constitutional monarchies. During the war, theEmperor had ruled as an absolute monarch and was manipulated by hisadvisors. Eager to prevent such an abuse of power from ever again occurring, the new American-made constitution stated that theEmperor would only be a "symbol of the nation" and was forbidden from any degree of participation in the political process.

Ending a constitutional monarchy

In most constitutional monarchies, the monarchy exists only at the pleasure of the elected parliament . In many cases, a simple majority vote in parliament is considered sufficient to abolish the monarchyand replace it with some form of republican alternative. With the possibleexception of post-war Italy , no modern, democratic constitutional monarchy has voted toabolish itself. Most have ended as a result of complications following the aftermath of war or invasion (such as Austria or Germany or because of a violentanti-monarchial revolution (such as in Russia or Greece ).

Though many of Europe's past and present leftist parties contain anti-monarchyfactions, to date few have openly declared a preference for flat-out monarchial abolition, and instead use their powers tocurtail and reform alleged "un-democratic" or "predjudiced" elements of the monarchy. For example, in recent years the age-oldtradition of "males first" order of succession to the thronehas been abolished in most constitutional monarchies, allowing for eldest daughters to assume the throne before their brothers.The removal of formal reserve powers from the monarchy is anothercommon measure in which a party may chose to "de-politicize" the monarchy, yet not scrap the entire institution.

The most likely reason why modern constitutional monarchies continue to survive is that the individual royal familiesthemselves have remained popular. Today, most contemporary royal families go out of their way to project a modern image to thecitizenry of a monarchy that is both caring and interested in the people and their country. Such moves can help make a monarchyseem contemporarily relevant, especially when the royals themselves get involved within the community. As long as a monarchy canremain popular in the public eye, there is little reason for the politicians to meddle, and those who do can easily findthemselves at the recieving end of harsh public criticism.

Other defenders of constitutional monarchies argue that royal families promote tourism, and are a key tradition associatedwith patriotism and national pride. A further argument speculates thatabolishing a popular monarchy may be a pointless endeavor anyway, as even a "deposed" royal family could presumably still livetheir royal lifestyle and capture public attention, making any republican replacement seem illigitimate.

Some other constitutional monarchies

• Australian monarchy
• Belgian monarchy
• British monarchy
• Monarchy in Canada
• Danish monarchy
• Dutch monarchy
• Japanesemonarchy
• Jordanianmonarchy
• Liechtenstein
• Luxembourg
• Monaco
• Moroccanmonarchy
• Nepalese monarchy
• Norway
• Spanish monarchy
• Swedish monarchy
• Thai monarchy

See also:

• Aristocracy
• Oligarchy
• Popular monarchy (where a monarch's title is linked to apeople, not a state, eg, 'King of the Belgians', 'King of the French', etc.)
• British republican movement