The British monarchy has played a role in the governance and administration of the realm throughout history. However, some people argue that the British monarchy is far too old to have a representative and included government. Is it too undemocratic and old to be able to effectively rule the British constitutional monarchy? Or is its tradition able to preserve a strong, stable government system? The monarch is the head of state in a constitutional monarchy. Although the entire government is in the name and control of the Queen at the moment, it does not have any real power over its governance. The monarch has the ability to pirogue, reopen parliament and other checks and balances. However, these powers have been lost over the last 300 years. These offices can be combined, as is the case in the United States. These offices can be combined in many countries, but they are often kept separate. In some countries, the head-of-state can be either a president of a monarch. The monarch is currently the head of the UK’s state, while the Prime Minister is our head government. The uniqueness of Britain’s constitutional monarchy is that it has both a monarchy and a codified constitution. New Zealand is the only country with the exact same system. Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state in New Zealand, is the other. Democracies is a Greek word that means citizens rule or power. Therefore, democracy refers to a country where people elect representatives to govern their behalf. It is therefore contradictory to consider an unelected monarch head of state in a democracy. Many republicans say that no one should be allowed to lead British democracy if they don’t elect themselves or are inherited their position. The monarch cannot be held responsible for the country they represent. People in the UK often question the role of monarchs and the true meaning of their position as heads of state. Checks and BalancesThe British constitution has seen the decline of the royal power and the transfer of it to ministers of government over the centuries. The constitution’s main purpose is to limit the sovereign’s powers and ensure they adhere to democratic government values. The constitution states that the monarch does not pose a threat or danger to democracy. Instead, he acts as a guardian. The constitution states that the monarch can be a custodian of the constitution to ensure the preservation of it, in the event that the constitution is under threat. However, such an unlikely event (so rare it hasn’t happened in 300 years) means that the monarch must act on the government’s advice and not entirely by their own volition. RoleAlthough head of state has the responsibility to protect it; the symbol of Britain’s statehood is not its constitution. The symbol of Britain’s nation and state is not the same as the French or American republics. It is a person. This is good for the whole state because it makes it easier for people to feel an affinity to someone who lives and breathes the core values of the country, rather than just a piece of paper. The constitutional monarchy ensures that the monarch does not have any decision-making powers. This ensures that rule cannot be left to one person like a dictator. The second is to humanize power, meaning that its forces are subordinated to the state symbol – which the monarch represents. The monarch can be seen as a protector for democracy as the head of state. Some argue that this may be true, but there are many aspects to Queen Elizabeth II’s position that render it completely undemocratic. She is our head state and executive under what is called the Crown. With its prerogative rights, the Crown can approve or deny treaties and declare war. The Queen can also consent to and stop any legislation. The Queen can also be the source of justice in all her courts throughout the country. A state must be able to exercise its powers in a way that is completely democratic. Separate operations must be maintained by the legislature, judiciary, and executive in order to avoid one being more powerful than another. In Britain, however, the head of the state plays a major role in all three. Accordingly to strong republican sentiments, the Queen’s post is completely undemocratic as it allows one person to become far more powerful than the other. These positions are merely formalities. Even though the Queen heads the executive, nearly all prerogative rights are exercised by or on advice from ministers. The same applies to her judicial functions. Again, it appears that the Queen is only able to act on the ‘advices’ of her ministers. But a constitutional monarchy means that ministers cannot refuse to give advice to the sovereign. All actions related to government and constitution must be taken with the guidance of ministers elected by the people. The actions of the sovereign must always be consistent with democratic principles. The sovereign does have some personal prerogatives. These are limited and can be exercised without the intervention of ministers. These two are extremely important. The first one is the appointment and naming of a prime minister. Although this is just a formality it is essential for smooth transitions. The Queen has the right to refuse to dissolve parliament. This is normal. However, the sovereign may dissolution a minority government prime minister or prime minister who loses support. Although it may seem that the sovereign cannot refuse to allow parliament to be held, this prerogative is not available in all cases.
