Queen Elizabeth II at 60 Years of Reign: What is the Meaning of a Modern Constitutional Monarchy?
"Queen Elizabeth II, 1952-2012," various signs across Her Majesty's great capital city proclaims. Patriotism, so uncommonly seen physically here on the British Isles, seems to be at an all-time high on this weekend, with British flags and other related goods sold in shops across the city, just in time for people to celebrate Her Majesty's 60 years of reign by attending a boat parade on the Thames River this Sunday (i.e. tomorrow). The uninhibited adoration that the Crown receive from both the British and foreign residents, at least here in London, seems unanimous.
For foreigners here in Britain for short-time sightseeing, the spectacle of British royalty must be a curiosity, in all its positive meanings. After all, many of them came to soak themselves in the British atmosphere, its culture, and its his history, and as an almost permanent institution at the center of all that "Britishness," the Royal Crown should indeed be adored by these foreign tourists seeking to discover that piece of British grandeur that simply no longer exists. However, for the long-term residents, the equally passionate attraction to the monarchy is a bit more difficult to comprehend.
Since the Glorious Revolution centuries ago, the British monarchy has been steadily decreasing in influence and political power, to the point that today, its role is a "ceremonial" figurehead of Britain and the Commonwealth whose only practical purpose of existence seems to be featured occasionally on various media reports and suck in tax revenues to maintain that facade of elegance and luxury traditionally associated with hereditary aristocracy in the psyche of we the common people. This "limited" role of kings and queens is true for all constitutional monarchies from Netherlands to Japan.
What is truly perplexing, especially for some people who have grown up in republican traditions, is that there seems to be not even a little bit of resentment among the general populace and the government who are literally feeding the undeserved costly allure of the royal family with their laborious taxpayer money. People seem to simply accept the existence of a hereditary family taking in free handouts while not really contributing to the well-being of the society that it "rules." Does anyone ever thought to using that money set aside for "monarchic maintenance" for something more useful like education?
It is particularly hypocritical when the silence over government revenues spent on the Queen (including this weekend's giant celebrations) is compared to the constant and heated debates over potential cuts on funding for various other social programs due to tight government budgets in the ongoing financial crisis. To continue diverting the limited cash flow for royalty use just seem to be again every principle of equality prescribed under a Western liberal tradition originated, ironically, under Western monarchies centuries ago.
Some proponents of monarchies argue that their continued existence is necessary for their symbol as an emotional unifying force for the people despite political or economic schisms. That argument does indeed hold for some developing country constitutional monarchies (Thailand is a prime example here, due to the king's continued exaltation as a sacred and infallible presence, unlike the political leadership). However, in politically stable countries like Britain, no potential crisis can split the country so much as to require or for it to be capable for emotional presence of the Queen to maintain national unity.
Seen from a logical and practical perspective, the constitutional monarchies of the developed world can be replaced by pure republics (or at least have the royal families work for their own income rather than just cashing in from the government treasury) without serious political crisis of any sort. The country under the direct leadership of an elected president would chug along just as it would under the indirect one under the Queen. Economic or social structures would not be altered suddenly due to disappearance of the Queen's "supervision."
Perhaps trying to think of the monarchy from an essentially republican mindset is the problem here. The fact that growing up with one set of norms have ingrained those norms in our minds so much means that it is perhaps impossible for us to look at a monarchy positively when the lack of the monarchy is, for us, the only sensible natural state. To judge monarchy objectively, the thinker maybe need to acquire the monarchist framework and all its different logic before proceeding with judgments on the merits and demerits of having the Queen remain Her Majesty for the foreseeable future...
For foreigners here in Britain for short-time sightseeing, the spectacle of British royalty must be a curiosity, in all its positive meanings. After all, many of them came to soak themselves in the British atmosphere, its culture, and its his history, and as an almost permanent institution at the center of all that "Britishness," the Royal Crown should indeed be adored by these foreign tourists seeking to discover that piece of British grandeur that simply no longer exists. However, for the long-term residents, the equally passionate attraction to the monarchy is a bit more difficult to comprehend.
Since the Glorious Revolution centuries ago, the British monarchy has been steadily decreasing in influence and political power, to the point that today, its role is a "ceremonial" figurehead of Britain and the Commonwealth whose only practical purpose of existence seems to be featured occasionally on various media reports and suck in tax revenues to maintain that facade of elegance and luxury traditionally associated with hereditary aristocracy in the psyche of we the common people. This "limited" role of kings and queens is true for all constitutional monarchies from Netherlands to Japan.
What is truly perplexing, especially for some people who have grown up in republican traditions, is that there seems to be not even a little bit of resentment among the general populace and the government who are literally feeding the undeserved costly allure of the royal family with their laborious taxpayer money. People seem to simply accept the existence of a hereditary family taking in free handouts while not really contributing to the well-being of the society that it "rules." Does anyone ever thought to using that money set aside for "monarchic maintenance" for something more useful like education?
It is particularly hypocritical when the silence over government revenues spent on the Queen (including this weekend's giant celebrations) is compared to the constant and heated debates over potential cuts on funding for various other social programs due to tight government budgets in the ongoing financial crisis. To continue diverting the limited cash flow for royalty use just seem to be again every principle of equality prescribed under a Western liberal tradition originated, ironically, under Western monarchies centuries ago.
Some proponents of monarchies argue that their continued existence is necessary for their symbol as an emotional unifying force for the people despite political or economic schisms. That argument does indeed hold for some developing country constitutional monarchies (Thailand is a prime example here, due to the king's continued exaltation as a sacred and infallible presence, unlike the political leadership). However, in politically stable countries like Britain, no potential crisis can split the country so much as to require or for it to be capable for emotional presence of the Queen to maintain national unity.
Seen from a logical and practical perspective, the constitutional monarchies of the developed world can be replaced by pure republics (or at least have the royal families work for their own income rather than just cashing in from the government treasury) without serious political crisis of any sort. The country under the direct leadership of an elected president would chug along just as it would under the indirect one under the Queen. Economic or social structures would not be altered suddenly due to disappearance of the Queen's "supervision."
Perhaps trying to think of the monarchy from an essentially republican mindset is the problem here. The fact that growing up with one set of norms have ingrained those norms in our minds so much means that it is perhaps impossible for us to look at a monarchy positively when the lack of the monarchy is, for us, the only sensible natural state. To judge monarchy objectively, the thinker maybe need to acquire the monarchist framework and all its different logic before proceeding with judgments on the merits and demerits of having the Queen remain Her Majesty for the foreseeable future...
Comments
Post a Comment