What is a democratic about a monarchy like the one in the UK?

Question

What is a democratic about a monarchy like the one in the UK?

Answer 1

"You want to buy a CD ?"  It's the blue blood!

Answer 2

In any democracy, you need someone to prevent the abuse of power.  What is democratic about America when the system lets idiots like Bush take them to war?  What is democratic about Zimbabwe?

Our monarch doesn't run the country or interfere with the running of the country, but she has the power to sack the government and call a general election.  She did that in Australia when Whitlam tried to take over as dictator - that's why the Australian Labor party are desperate to get rid of her and the Australian people are just as keen to keep her.

Answer 3

The monarchy in the UK don't rule. The government does.

Whether any government is any better than a monarchy is open to debate.

Answer 4

Nothing, but more to the point, what exactly is democratic about the UK anyway?  

The common man here in UK did not get the vote until after WW-One in 1918.  Women did not get the vote until the 1920s.

UK is a Constitutional Monarchy - the monarch is head of state.

USA is a Constitutional Republic - the President is head of state.

The difference?  To become head of state of UK you only need to be a child of the monarch.  This narrows things down considerably to one small inbred k***t family, who's ancestor George III was a nut-case.

In the USA you have to be elected by all the people all the time in order to get the top job - the elected King of America, ye President of the United States of America.

The only other 'real' democracy is France.

Both the above nations had a successfulo Revolution and overthrew the Monarch.  In the case of the Republic of France, the people chopped off the head of their King.  Good for them.

In the case of the USA they gave Geo 3 the two finger salute and told him to shove off.  Good fore them.

America - Land of the Brave and the Free.

France Libre.

When one thinks back to those days of the enlightenment, the British were 50% in support of the American Revolution and despite the stupid Victorian propoganda, actually openly supported the French Revolution too.  Lord Byron was an open supporter of Napoleon and even told the Prince of Wales that he was a fat prat, and much worse, for not understanding the urgent need for democracy.

In the 1830s the Chartists began their campaign for the reform of parliament. Their demands were reasonable but an unreasonable government of royalist facsists still transported people to the then penal colony of Australia.

In the 1870s Australian workers fought for and won their right to an eight hour day.  Meanwhile here in stupid backward UK people were still working a 12 hour day of hard labour for low wages right into WW2.  I know because my mother worked 12 hour shifts on and off throughout WW2 in a factory in Brum.

The workers of Britain are still working far longer hours for far less money than their European brothers and sisters.

Time for  REVOLUTION!

IN PLAIN ENGLISH, THERE IS DEMN ALL DEMOCRATIC ABOUT A MONARCHY AND WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT THEM.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

Answer 5

Nothing - you don't vote for the monarchy but the Queen doesn't run the country or we wouldn't be in the mess we are. Democracy is only dictatorship in another name because the government don't do what we want anyway.

Answer 6

Well they have no power of government so what's undemocratic about it?

Answer 7

The monarchy isn't democratic and it doesn't purport to be. It's tradition and they are our figureheads, I would hate to lose them. The Queen has very little real powers nowaday anyway apart from giving Royal Assent to legislation introduced by the government.

Answer 8

There is nothing inherently democratic about a monarchy...you seem to be confusing the concept of constitutional monarchy and democracy. The UK is democratic inasmuch as parliament is elected ny the people and that forms the Government...and parliament has supremacy over the monarchy, which is a symbolic institution which weilds no power. In the UK, the monarch does not sack governments, and by convention will call an election etc WHEN formally advised to by the prime Minister of the day.

The person who noted that Whitlam was sacked in Australia by the monarch, for attempting to be a dictator, is patently ridiculous. The vice-regal representative (which is NOT a Head of State, but a representative thereof, such as the Viceroy was in India until they saw sense in 1947) actually weild much more constitutional power than the monarch does: Elizabeth II did NOT have the power to dismiss Whitlam - the Governor-General, under our Constitutional conventions over breaking the supply (of money) stalemate in the Senate (where the Opposition dominbated Senate blocked money supply to the legitimate Government of the day), was able to act as he did in dismissing a democratically elected Government. The Queen would have, and still is, powerless to do so. This is an anomaly mponarchists do not address here...and the referendum was lost NOT on the Republic here, but on the model proposedwhich had an appointed President rather than a directly elected one. As far as the refernda outcome, 51% defeated the proposition, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics compiled the written comments on ballowts...and the Electoral Commission did not invalidated ballots which were written on (defaced)...and 75% of voters said they would have supported a republic in Australia of it were a differnt model proposed, or of the prime Minister of the day (John Howard)  had stuck by his promise at the Constitutional Convention to have a referendum on the Republic, follwoeed by a plebescite on proposed models if the referendum was successful.

Australians are not desperate to hold onto the British monarchy. It is fine for Britain to have a Head of State (and remember that in parliamentary democracies, we separate the Legislative from the Executive branches). I do not think, and most Australians no longer think, that the monarchy is relavent here...even Elizabeth II herself has noted, as the popularity of royal tours diminished to bare trickles of supporters and, with the current monarch, have ceased entirely...that they would go when we asked them to go...We would mostly much rather prefer an Australian Head of State, not a foreigner with a locally appointed representative! Because that is what we have.

Answer 9

Parliament is why it's a democratic,constitutional monarchy.Parliament and The Prime Minister are all elected.

http://www.royal.gov/uk explains it this way:

"In a monarchy a king or queen is Head of State. The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Queen is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Although the British Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation."

They further state:"

As a system of government, constitutional monarchy has many strengths. One is that it separates out the ceremonial and official duties of the Head of State from party politics. Another is that it provides stability and continuity, since the Head of State remains the same even as governments come and go.

Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State, while the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

The Sovereign governs according to the constitution - that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will.

Although the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can bind just as much as formal constitutional rules.

As a constitutional monarch, The Queen cannot make or pass legislation, and must remain politically neutral. On almost all matters The Queen acts on the advice of ministers.

However, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Queen also has official roles to play in other organisations, such as the Armed Forces and the Church of England.

As a system of government, constitutional monarchy has many strengths. One is that it separates out the ceremonial and official duties of the Head of State from party politics.

Another is that it provides stability, continuity and a national focus, since the Head of State remains the same even as governments come and go. "

Answer 10

A monarchy is not democratic at all!

I would at least like to see a proper referendum on if we should keep the Queen as a figure head, even if the people vote we keep her. I respect the Queen (and her family) as a human being so im not one of those Replublicans who slander her (FYI Im British Republican nothing like the US Republicans, im very much liberal! - In case your confused). I want a figurehead i can vote in, however I respect the wishes of the majority of the country who want royalty.

I think the Queen has some but limited political power. I think it's unfair that person is born into power, even if that power is limited. Lets not forget though, she can dissolve parliment at the request of the Prime Minister, if she had no political power, why can she do that? Whos to say that the monarch can't get their power back? (Extreme case i know).

Im a member of the group below. British republicans from all walks of life and of all sorts of political persuations.

(Edited due to spelling)

Answer 11

Nothing, that's why the UK can not be a democracy with an unelected head of state.

Answer 12

Nothing.  The monarchy is separate from the elected officials of the UK and does not take an active role in government policy.

Answer 13

god save the queen

Answer 14

Nothing. It's completely undemocratic.

Answer 15

The monarchy in the UK is a constitutional monarchy, meaning that a king or queen acts as Head of State, while the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

The Sovereign governs according to the constitution - that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will.

Although the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can bind just as much as formal constitutional rules.

As a constitutional monarch, The Queen cannot make or pass legislation, and must remain politically neutral. On almost all matters The Queen acts on the advice of ministers.

However, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Queen also has official roles to play in other organisations, such as the Armed Forces and the Church of England.

Since the monarch does not really have political power, it does not need to be elected by democratic process. Democracy means one person one vote to choose our political leader (then he/she chooses the cabinet, not us), election after every few years (and all that goes with it, e.g. political parties), and that's it. It does not guarantee anything else.

Answer 16

Oh Rodney you plonker!

Answer 17

The monarchy, though mainly powerless, answers to the Parliament, which, as I recall, is elected.

Answer 18

Inherited titles are not democratic.   However, democracy is about government and titles of honour, so long as they are separate from executive power, are removed from government and so their existence may not be held as evidence of the absence of democracy.

The UK monarch for instance has little if any real power.   Most of the powers of the crown are exercised by the government.   The powers of the crown are not exercised by a hereditary ruler but an elected one.

Reserved powers are few and the exercise of these would be undemocratic and as such would be resisted.   The last time this occurred in the UK was in the sixties when the queen chose a prime-minister but she was acting on the advice of senior members of the government.   Similar powers were used in Australia (by the Crown in the form of the Governor General) and led to a constitutional crisis.

It is unlikely that such direct intervention will occur again.

As such, it would be specious to suggest the UK monarchy renders the UK an undemocratic country.

Much more serious threats are engendered by the lack of representation of minority parties in the Commons and the related landslide majorities based on low pluralities of the vote, by the power of vested interests in the Communications Media and by, most egregiously, the lack of participation of the public in localised democracy let alone their engagement in more formal party political processes or even voting.

Answer 19

It's democratic the fact that "she" lets you vote for idiots like Blair and Brown.