Monarchy: arguments against
A continuation of Cuprum’s discussion.
As I have already said, I would keep the monarchy, albeit in a much-diminished form, because I prefer it, however bumbling, to some self-promoted megalomaniac.
But as some of you have complained that no-one has laid out the arguments for abolishing the monarchy, I have quickly cobbled them together for you.
A hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist. In a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth.
Monarchy contradicts democracy. It denies the people a basic right to elect an accountable head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It also devalues a parliamentary system. its prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability.
Monarchy is ethnic-discrimination by virtue of its narrow breeding mechanisms.
Monarchy is gender-discriminative. The British Royal Family uses male primogeniture.
It devalues intellect and achievement. Members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement such as honorary military titles.
It harms the monarchs themselves. It condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood.
Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests.
The monarchy is expensive. The total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill) of the monarchy are over £100 million per annum. Moreover, the Royal finances, which are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, are shrouded in secrecy.
The monarchy makes the UK appear ‘backwards’. The concept is archaic. While the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.
The monarchy no longer commands the respect or support of the British people. Only 12% of the public believe that the monarchy should continue in its present form.