Democracy and Monarchy

[Dave2002]

Since the current government wants to push for a democratically elected (how, by whom) House of Lords, should we not also go another step towards full democracy and have a democratically elected Monarch?

There would be some interesting consequences if such an idea were ever to be considered.
I'm not against democracy, but the House of Lords thing seems like yet another way of getting political cronies into power, and would have some interesting side effects.
For one thing, it is likely that the proportion of scientifically knowledgeable persons involved in government would decrease considerably.

That might be fine if we want a society based on voodoo beliefs, but I for one do not. Some journalists and politicians have tried to cast doubt on science and scientists during the last decade or more, and it may be that some of the arguments put forward by some scientists are flawed, but on the whole I'd rather have a society in which at least a few people in government had some knowledge based on more than mere opinion.

Now, back to the question of the first para. Discuss!

[Petrushka]

How can one have a democratically elected monarch? It's either a Monarchy or it's a Republic, surely?

Our system of government, while not perfect in many ways and in recent years let down by poor quality incumbents rather than the system itself, has served us well for 1,000 years in both war and peace and I see little need for any change.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

President Cameron.

[ardcarp]

How can one have a democratically elected monarch? It's either a Monarchy or it's a Republic, surely?

You took the words right out of my mouth, Petrushka. It's not only a logical contradiction but a philological one too. Anyone read Sue Townsend's The Queen and I ?

[Lateralthinking1]

While in theory the Queen could abolish Parliament and probably send the whole of the army in to the East End, the power resides elsewhere. One thinks of Lloyd George. In all of the mayhem after the last General Election, the nature of any coalition was far from certain but one thing was crystal clear. The monarch would not be embroiled. By contrast, if elected representatives decide to use her, she has very little say in the matter. Hence it is she unfortunately who has to go to Belfast this week and risk life and limb. She's been told to do it although she is probably not against it instinctively.

There is a working political power in the House of Lords. Witness the amendments to the NHS Bill. I have no strong opinions on the nature of future change there. At the very least, it needs the kinds of reform that are also needed in the Commons - no payments for people who hardly ever attend - is that you Lord Malloch Brown? - and a scythe through external money interests. Overall, what you lose in democracy with them, you probably gain in things like experience and watered down egos. I find it hard to think of a recent time when on critical matters the Lords haven't been more helpful to the public than the Commons. Often though they don't do enough. The one thing I would be vehemently against is having no second chamber at all.

[MrGongGong]

President Cameron.

president Attenborough ?

[JohnSkelton]

How can one have a democratically elected monarch? It's either a Monarchy or it's a Republic, surely?

You took the words right out of my mouth, Petrushka. It's not only a logical contradiction but a philological one too. Anyone read Sue Townsend's The Queen and I ?

But there is such a thing as "elective monarchy" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

It only becomes contradictory, surely, if you believe in some version of Divine Right (or in a Foundation Myth where the ancestors bestowed power on a particular family)? This isn't an argument by me for electing a Queen or King .

[mangerton]

Since the current government wants to push for a democratically elected (how, by whom) House of Lords, should we not also go another step towards full democracy and have a democratically elected Monarch?

If by "Monarch" you mean head of state, then I'm all for it. And I'm all for a democratically elected H of L too. Both to be elected by the (as currently constituted) electorate.

Most important caveat: Anyone asking, suggesting, or touting in any way that he/she should be elected should be banned for life from holding any position.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

why a president, again i refer boredees to the collective arrangement for head of state in Switzerland... why this unthinking fetish of individuals? ... a view that only accepts big men and then reviles them is deeply dysfunctional ... we need to be very grown up about this and not start yahooing [eg President Cameron President Blair King Charles etc] each other

one direct consequence of the present monarchy is the dreadful importance of 'Majesty' in our society the ridiculous rules of precedence with their antiquated bpbs and curtsies and indeed the whole institutionalised class and deference systems entailed by our monarchy ... and the role of that nebulous monster 'the crown' in our power structures

[agingjb]

If we ever do, for some reason, change our constitution to a republic, then I do hope we will have a non-executive head of state (like Ireland and Germany) and not an executive President (like the USA and France).

Then again, is "we" the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England, or Wessex?