With a monarchical system, elections are merely how we choose who rules over us

By James Gray

The New Statesman is to be congratulated for highlighting the many reasons why Britain desperately needs a republican constitution.

As can be seen in the Palace’s (heavily abridged) annual finance reports, the Windsors’ fleecing of the taxpayer is at least as bad as MPs’ abuse of the Westminster expenses system. But this is about much more than money.

Many Republic members would be happy to see the Queen replaced by an elected head of state, with no further reform to our constitution. Such a simple substitution of elected President for unelected monarch would be a momentous step on Britain’s journey toward full democracy. But I would argue that this needs to be accompanied by a fundamental shift in the flow of power in Britain.

The monarchy is a secretive, unaccountable and hugely wasteful institution, yes. But more importantly it gives almost limitless power to politicians. Through the royal prerogative, Privy Council and that strange construct called the “Crown-in-Parliament”, the Prime Minister essentially wields the power of a medieval monarch. It’s not just Queen Elizabeth we need to worry about – it’s King Gordon (or Dave, of course).

But is this really a problem? After all, Prime Ministers are elected. This is the question that has split Labour on the monarchy issue.

Although many of Republic’s Parliamentary supporters are Labour, the party has a somewhat ambivalent attitude to the monarchy. There’s no doubt that the royal family is seen by many in the labour movement as the apex of the British class system, but traditionalists can feel uneasy about the language of democratic republicanism.

The argument for a republican constitution is based an appeal for popular sovereignty, so that power resides with the people rather than the Crown. For the Labour collectivist tradition this appeal springs from an ultimately individualistic conception of democracy. Their aim is to win control of the state and use it to build (their understanding of) a better society. A powerful executive, with the might of the Crown behind it, is all to the good.

I’d argue that this is a fundamentally anti-democratic understanding of democracy. Republicanism is based on the principle that political arguments are won by open debate and persuasion, leading hopefully to consensus – not by using monarchical power to bulldoze through legislation.

Elections should be the process by which we (the people) delegate power to politicians. With a constitution based on the Crown, they are merely a way for us to choose who will rule over us for the next few years.

Thankfully, radical constitutional reform is now firmly on the agenda for all main parties. Proportional representation, an elected upper house and local power of recall are all well and good, but until we have a constitution based on the power of the people we will always be hostage to the whims of politicians.