This year marks the 350th anniversary of the restoration of the monarchy following the English Civil War. Despite the industrial revolution and the collapse of the British Empire, the UK remains a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as the unelected head of state [Ref: Direct.gov]. Debates about whether the monarchy should be abolished have taken place for centuries; however the nature of the debate today differs from previous eras. Whilst few people in secular Britain would now support the notion of a divine right to rule, many enjoy the celebrity, pomp and ceremony of the Royal Family; seeing it as part of a harmless British tradition, good for tourism and international trade, and a bulwark against political and social instability. Campaigners against the monarchy point out the more insidious anti-democratic aspects of having an unelected head of state, for instance the use of the ancient royal prerogative by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet to pass legislation and make decisions without having to consult elected representatives in parliament [Ref: History Learning Site]. Indeed in 2008, the UN Human Rights Council published a report recommending that the Britain should consider holding a referendum on whether the monarch should remain the head of state [Ref: Daily Telegraph]. Others argue there is no public appetite for such an initiative and that Britain benefits from having a monarchy that stands apart from the ‘murky’ process of electioneering and the potential ill-judgement of the electorate.

An anchor in a changing world or holding back progress?
After the 2009 MPs’ expenses scandal [Ref: suite101.com], the Queen was held up as a shining example of reliability and trustworthiness compared to the rotten, corruptible political class [Ref: Daily Telegraph]. Following the hung parliament in the May 2010 general elections, the presence of a monarch was said to be crucial in keeping Britain from chaos [Ref: Daily Telegraph] The fact that the head of state is unelected, it is argued, is positive, as it allows him or her to look to Britain’s long-term interests, rather than pandering to the short-term desires of the public to secure votes. Many agree with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s description of the Queen as ‘an anchor for our age’ in a ‘changing and churning world’ [Ref: United Nations]. Opponents argue that such a position shows an elitist contempt for the idea that the public are capable of governing their own affairs. Far from ‘steadying the ship’, argues commentator Brendan O’Neill, the presence of a monarch encourages the idea that people are not in control of their own destinies and need a blue-blooded ‘expert’ to make decisions on their behalf [Ref: spiked]. Supporters point to the knowledge and experience the monarchy possesses, and argue that focusing on overturning centuries of tradition distracts from looking at other, more important problems with contemporary society [Ref: New Statesman]. Opponents argue that the existence of the monarchy is fundamentally at odds with a society promoting democracy and equality, perpetuating the idea that wealth and power result from an accident of birth, rather than merit [Ref: Guardian].

A threat to democracy or harmless figureheads?
Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution (1867) famously outlined a template for relations between monarch and parliament – the monarch has ‘the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn’ - which has been broadly followed since. Whilst the pomp of traditional regal ceremonies remains, the monarch does not interfere in the business of parliament. Consistent with this, Buckingham Palace made it clear that the Queen’s personal preference would play no role in determining the outcome of the hung parliament at the last general election [Ref: BBC News]. On the other hand, Prince Charles is notorious for using his position to campaign around certain causes [Ref: Guardian], from opposing GM food to promoting alternative medicine to lobbying the Qatari Prime Minister to alter the design of the Chelsea Barracks building [Ref: Daily Telegraph].

Critics further point out that the royal prerogative allows the Prime Minister to bypass the democratic process, and according to The Observer, endows the PM with ‘quasi-dictatorial powers covering everything from making war to signing treaties’ [Ref: Guardian]. The royal prerogative is not simply a dormant principle: for example, former Prime Minister Tony Blair used it in 1999 to commit UK forces to Kosovo without parliamentary approval [Ref: The Times]. Supporters of the monarchy point to the flaws in politicians and Parliament, and argue that electing a President as head of state could result in a more powerful politician whom the electorate do not trust. Opponents argue that the virtue of elections is that people get to make the choice of their political representatives; and that a bad politician, unlike the Queen, can always be stripped of his or her power by being elected out [Ref: spiked].

Popular and good for tourism?
Reasons often given by the public in support of the monarchy include its importance for tourism, trade and international relations, particularly with the US. But such assertions have been criticised as a Royal spin campaign [Ref: Republic]. A leading polling organisation has reported that public support for the monarchy has remained consistently high: only 18% would see it abolished, the same as when polls began in 1969 [Ref: Time]. This, it is argued, demonstrates public support for the monarchy, rendering a referendum unnecessary; and at a time when there is little republican fever in the UK, there seems to be neither the will nor the basis for abolishing the monarchy. Opponents counter that if people use popular support as an argument for the monarchy, why not allow a referendum to take place to prove this?