Figurehead

I approach the question of the Monarchy from the following position; [1] if the Queen has no power, then, when we adopt a republican political system there is no pressing constitutional need to replace her.  Or; [2] if the Queen has power, then our primary democratic duty is to republicanise Britain.

I am angled to incline towards [1] being the case.  And for me, under the conditions of [1], I still feel the need to remove the powerless Queen. 

For what she represents; her role as a social actant rather than as an empowered actor.

She, and the Monarchy that she embodies, represents a Britain of deference, of domination, of class, of imperialism.  And on, and on.  And these values are given a figurehead, a ‘God bless her’ organisational focus by the Queen’s presence as head of state.

But someone will become head of state.  Do we promote the Prime Minister?  If [1] is in fact the case then this would little alter our political system.  But it would give us another figurehead, and without a Queen to cleave to we would instead attach our loyalties to another living representation of Britain.  But this would be worse. 

Like the USA, we would find that our society would develop its very own case of Presidential Syndrome.  Couple the position of figurehead with the role of leader of the executive and the legislature and we would walk a dangerous path.  ‘I support our Prime Minister in whatever he does, because he is our Prime Minister and we must respect the office of Prime Minister’, to paraphrase Ms. Britney Spears. 

So do we elect an apolitical figurehead of the state?  The role of the figure as an actant even when the power as an actor is removed means that there can be no such thing.  If 51% of Britons, or, more accurately, 51% of whatever small percentage of the polity actually vote, or, even less if the race is more than a two-way… if the plurality of the voting population vote for, say, Richard Branson then his brand of self-aggrandising egotism becomes the representative character of Britain.  This would exclude those who feel differently, possibly a majority of the voting population, probably a majority of the polity.  And more, it would project this character outwards.   

This would be terribly inaccurate.  G.W. Bush may be a moron, but it is not true to say that American’s are morons, or that America is a moron nation.  However entertaining it may be to say so.  But, that said, G.W. Bush, as the head of state of the United States, has done one thing tremendously well; project the image of America as a moron nation to the rest of the world.  That is now a patently clear-cut case, carved by diamond drills onto Mount Rushmore.  The figurehead of the nation, shapes that image of the nation as an exaggerated copy of he, she or it 

It.  It is the word, as it is my answer to the problem of head of state.  If the head of state needs no real political power, as in scenario [1], then the head of state need not be human.  Or even alive.  A statue would suffice.  But not of a once-living person, an object that would carry its own set of exclusionary, unwanted and debilitating images.  Rather, what I propose is that we erect a stature, representative of a human being but not recognisably of any gender, of any race, of any period in time.  We could all own a functionally identical copy of our head of state, to sit on the mantlepeice, hold a door open or to serve as a patriotic magazine rack.  The Queen cannot do that, can she? 

The statue would be an empty space, a cipher for whatever values and characteristics we choose to ascribe to it.  Even if the we in question is a minority of one.  After all, if instead of telling people what it means to be British we allowed people to develop their own definitions of what it means to be British, would not that be, well, very British indeed?

16 comments
  1. John A said:

    She’s great for tourist dollars though – roughly equivalent to what Che Guevara is to Cuban tourism.

  2. MatGB said:

    Andrew, while amusing, and I love the description of the moron nation, your basic supposition is wrong.

    The Queen both has power and has used it. She has, personally, fired one UK PM, and personally selected two individuals to serve in that role. The powers of the Crown, exercised on her behalf, are fairly extensive, all of them can be recalled for her use if need be.

    Ergo, your point 2 should apply. Except that republicanism, like all radical ideas, alienates people, and there will always be monarchists, who venerate the family, and there will always be constitutionalists, who like the idea of the institution as a bulwark, just as in Spain King Juan Carlos can be given a large amount of the credit for ensuring Spain emerged as a functioning democracy in the post-Franco years.

    I think the Head needs some power, but should mostly be ceremonial, doing all the “State” stuff like visits, tours, etc and leaving the “political” stuf to the PM and Cabinet. You then don’t get those dumb Britney moments but still have someone, an individual, who can meet people, be respected, etc.

    John? Tourism revenue is a myth, studies I’ve read show that the existence of the monarch as is, within the closed castles and palaces, is bad for revenue, not good for it.

    Owen’s a Republican, I used to be,I’m now in favour of a constitutional monarchy, but not the settlement we currently have.

    But, y’know, statue not an awful idea. Maybe the lady Justice next to the Bailey? Oh, wait, Blair wouldn’t like that one…

  3. Pingback: Not Little England

  4. Don Meaker said:

    With regards to the US as moron nation….

    There once was Nation A, that as leading member of a coalition, had defeated Nation B with a long and aggressive history. The treaty which ended hostilities had been violated over and over again. The Nation A, though responsible for enforcing the terms of the treaty did nothing, despite these provocations.

    War eventually broke out, initated by Nation B. The world lost more than 50 million casualties.

    Another time Nation C, as leading member of a coalition, had defeated Nation D with a long and aggressive history. The treaty which ended hostilities had been violated over and over again. The Nation C responsible for enforcing the terms of the treaty, put together another coalition, invaded Nation D, and quickly, and for very few casualties ended the growing threat of Nation D, and established an elected government for Nation D, and put the former dicator of Nation D on trial.

    Now, which nation is the moron?

  5. Jeez Don, not another comparison of WWII Germany and GWII Iraq?

    There are major differences. GWI was nothing like WWI. Nothing at all. WWI lasted years and killed millions upon millions. At such cost ‘victory’ was far from clear cut. Such an experience of war would make any nation pacific. The ‘blood price’ of GWI, at least that paid by the coalition, was tiny in comparison. Victory was achieved quickly.

    More, at what point in the 1930s would you have had Britain invade Germany? Would there have been anything else that WWII come early? And more, a early WWII would most likely not have been fought with an industrialised Soviet Union on the allied side. I would argue that millions upon millions would have died in interminable battle across Western Europe before a hitherto neutral Red Army swept through the resulting ruined nations bringing the wonderful fruit of Stalinism.

    Iraq, when GWII rolled round, was a ruined state unable to put up a fight. Nevertheless, there is the prospect of endless conflict staring us all in the face.

    Anyway, what on Earth is your point, Don? This post was about the Monarchy and the role of head of state. Not your prickly jingoism.

  6. MatGB said:

    Don? WTF are you on about? If you’re going to use WWI as an analogy, can I point you to the failure of the US to ratify the League of Nations (that was set up by, oh, the US) as a contributing factor to the breakdown?

    Alternately, you could re read the paragraph, and then try to read these two links. They may help you to understand the point. Welcome to a British site. Debate properly, or, to quote our hosts, piss off?

    it is not true to say that American’s are morons, or that America is a moron nation

    Fairly clear to me. Now. Monarchy, Elected Executives or Cabinet style parliamentary accountability. I believe that was the subject of the debate?

  7. Jonn said:

    Andrew:
    it is not true to say that American’s are morons, or that America is a moron nation

    Mat:
    Fairly clear to me.

    Although the punctuation needs some work.

    …what are you looking at me like that for? Okay, the monarchy debate:

    Mat:
    I think the Head needs some power, but should mostly be ceremonial, doing all the “State” stuff like visits, tours, etc and leaving the “political” stuf to the PM and Cabinet. You then don’t get those dumb Britney moments but still have someone, an individual, who can meet people, be respected, etc.

    I agree, as happens depressingly often, with Mat. I think the best result at present would be to leave the Monarchy in place but to formalize its status as a figurehead, and codify the constitution so that power instead lies in Parliament. Like a fair chunk of the British constitution, it’s not that the system is bad at present – it’s that the rules are all based on convention, and convention, as Blair shows us repeatedly, can be cast aside on a whim.

  8. I doubt Charlie could get away with sacking/appointing prime ministers.
    (I actually doubt Charlie could get away with being King)

    Come to think of it, Mat, who are the ones Liz appointed? Home? McMillan? Who did she sack? Eden?

  9. Don Meaker is right. There is only one possible reason for thinking George Bush is a moron. Apart from Iraq nobody has questioned any of his policies.

  10. AndrewB said:

    “Although the punctuation needs some work.”

    Just in case anyone wonders, I did try to edit the text and consign my mistake to the memory bin.

    “but still have someone, an individual, who can meet people, be respected, etc.”

    It has been suggested that Stephen Fry would be perfect for this role, seeing as he seems to host every award show in Britain, why not move him from handing out BAFTAs to handing out gongs? And anyone who saw the Queen’s attempts at comedy the other week will know that this is one area in which our head of state could certainly improve.

    I’ve give Bush one thing; his routine with the Bush impersonator was actually pretty funny, though I did detect an air of menace, as if he could take the piss out of himself because, whatever is said, he is one of the most powerful men on Earth. And for all this power, his imagination sometimes seems to extend no further than using it to project force.

  11. MatGB said:

    Dave; she (technically) sacked Heath; I remember (vaguely) reading a paper on it, 1st ’74 election, he’d lost a majority but thought he could maintain a minority administration, which was, IIRC, the constitutional precedent.

    She thought otherwise. Ergo, she also chose Wilson, and also the Tory when wossname died (way before my time – Home?).

    Pedantic, but accurate, point; she ahs power, and has exercised it, she could do so again. Whether Charles could get away with it the way she did is debatable, but officially the power is all there.

  12. Shuggy said:

    She, and the Monarchy that she embodies, represents a Britain of deference, of domination, of class, of imperialism.

    An excutive president, like wot they have in the US, is essentially an idealised monarch. But in practice, and particularly since the 1980s, they reflect the political partisanship of the nation rather than its historical traditions. I’m not sure this is preferable at all. Why does everyone think the head of state should ’embody the nation’ in some sort of mystical way, anyway? And why does Tony Blair think he’s the head of state when he really isn’t? We may never know. But it seems reasonable to assume that life under President Blair would have been, or might be in the dystopian future, significantly less congenial than it is now?

  13. Mat, ah yes, I remember, the old Grocer was hard to remove. But you can hardly say that she therefore chose Wilson, can you? I mean, the one led to the other somewhat inevitably. It might have been fun if she’d chosen Thorpe. Or Callaghan. Or Thatcher, I suppose.

    “..also the Tory when wossname died (way before my time – Home?).”

    Noone died. Churchill lasted till 1965, Eden till 1977, Home & MacMillan until the 90s.
    Home was a surprise selection after MacMillan quit, but I doubt Liz had anything to do with it. The Tory Party took “soundings”, which said, as they had in 1957, “not Butler”.

  14. MatGB said:

    Ah, no no, I thought it was Home but couldn’t be bothered to look it up, but I do know that the soundings were taken, but they had to let Liz choose. Soon after that, they developed a system for electing leaders, the two were linked but they’d been planning on it anyway.

    but, she chose Wilson over Heath. To choose “not Heath” was also to choose Wilson, same decision, two outcomes; she sacked one, chose the other. QED ;-)

    Thorpe would’ve been funny though (and a legitimate choice as it happens); you need to be able to command a majority in the HoC, that’s really it. Thorpe could probably have built a Govt with moderates on both sides of the big 2. Would’ve been weird, but, y’know, counterfactuals are always silly fun.

    Shuggy, I think the point of Andrew’s article is to resist the idea of a presidential system as well? On that I agree with him completely. Which would be worse; President Blair or President Thatcher?

    It really comes to something when I find that decision hard to make.

  15. Shuggy said:

    Which would be worse; President Blair or President Thatcher?

    It really comes to something when I find that decision hard to make.

    I know what you mean. But I don’t find it a hard decision to make. Blair’s would be worse. Thatcher was more liberal.