The disappearance of Queen Elizabeth II sparked a sensation in Britain and around the world this week and raised questions about the model of parliamentary monarchy. Is the system of parliamentary monarchy more efficient than a parliamentary republic?
To be honest, this is debatable. Like other countries in Europe, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom is therefore a parliamentary monarchy. It implies that the emperor rules, but does not rule. All executive and legislative work goes to the party that has the majority in parliament and the government headed by the prime minister from the ranks of the majority party.
This monarchy-democracy coupling may seem hybrid, especially in countries such as France, which have struggled to free themselves from monarchy. This system of power actually calls into question its legitimacy: in the past, the monarchy drew from it religion, this is still officially the case in the United Kingdom where the sovereign directs the Anglican Church and is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. is worn. But this justification has lost its luster.
So, by what authority can a so-called royal family, in a hereditary manner, claim to lead a country? The answer is by no means clear. On paper, the principle of the republic seems even more legitimate and democratic: it is the sovereign people who, during regular elections, usually every five years, to avoid the wishes of the few to stay in power for too long. It is the people who elect him who will lead the country.
But in reality, things are more complicated: of course, once elected, the prime minister or the president of the republic, as the case may be, must represent not only the colors of his party, but all citizens of the country. should also be represented, including those who voted against him. In fact, it is rare that he manages to embody the unity of the nation as a whole and in particular.
Whereas in a parliamentary monarchy, the queen or king is on the throne for life, she can sometimes take the form of long-term continuance as seen with Elizabeth II. A continuum which may therefore have a little taste of eternity and in any case be accompanied by a whole life.
This is the first advantage. The second is more contradictory. In all countries where the emperor still rules, his presence on the throne is associated with one mandatory condition: the sovereign does not rule, does not say a word about the country’s politics. Because then, he again becomes biased and falls from his seat and asks himself the question of his political legitimacy. The last sovereigns in Europe who wanted to rule and rule ended up in staging or exile.
But if this condition is met, and it is so in the British system, the sovereign symbolizes the unity and even spirit of the nation. It’s abstract, it’s symbolic, but it really means a lot.
Elizabeth II was the quintessence of England, much more so than Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher. Even more so than Winston Churchill, with his aphorism: “ Democracy is the worst system except all others. ,
So, democracy, yes, even in a republican or monarchical form.
