Reclaiming Republicanism from Populists
We need to think about why constitutional monarchies punch above their weight in terms of democratic quality if we want to replace them
"Bandera republicana" by taimambi is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Spanish politics tends to be extremely disappointing and frustrating, as regular readers of Sharpen Your Axe will know. One of the most disappointing aspects is that republicanism is almost always supported by left-wing and nationalist populists.
A system based on a hereditary head of state is less popular here than in other constitutional monarchies after a series of scandals. Populists see it as the weak point in the constitutional order. Institutionalists tend to reluctantly rally around the crown out of fears that populist reforms to the constitution would make the country worse.
It doesn’t have to be like this. It should be perfectly possible to develop an institutionalist form of republicanism. First, though, let’s steel man the argument for a constitutional monarchy.
Conservative thinkers have long argued that it can be dangerous to remove institutions that have existed for many centuries. They might act in ways we don’t fully understand, embedding hard-won but little-understood lessons from our ancestors. Meanwhile, some members of society might be drawn to institutions with very ancient roots.
In the mid 19th century, British essayist and author Walter Bagehot presented a strong defence of a constitutional monarchy. He said that it was important to separate the “dignified parts” of Britain’s unwritten constitution from the “efficient parts.” In more modern terms, we might talk about the monarchy having a ceremonial role separate from the executive branch.
In the contemporary world, there are only 27 true constitutional monarchies. However, they punch above their weight in terms of democratic quality. The Economist lntelligence Unit lists 21 full democracies in the world. Amazingly, a full ten of them are constitutional monarchies. This clearly shows that splitting the ceremonial and executive branches can and does work.
Although constitutional monarchies can support democracy, the idea of hereditary roles and hierarchies can seem off-putting to many liberals, who want people to live their lives as they see fit. Choosing a head of state from a narrow pool of people based on old-fashioned concepts like “royal blood” and “breeding” seems difficult to justify. The Amercian mythology about a head of state moving up from humble beginnings in a log cabin seems healthier for society, even though the EIU counts the US as a flawed democracy.
We have seen before that power corrupts. This helps explain why a ceremonial and non-executive head of state can do less damage than an executive one. However, this insight can help us come up with a suggestion for a non-populist republicanism.
The head of state should be a non-executive and ceremonial role. We can restrict it to people over the age of 50, who have had experience as elected officials. They can stand for a single term of five years, after which they must retire from politics for good.
One tweak that I like is that we give the head of state the right to veto one piece of legislation once. However, doing so immediately triggers a parliamentary election and a presidential election. The candidates can run on a platform of resubmitting the legislation in question. Meanwhile, the former head of state would lose his or her presidential pension as a result of using the veto and would be barred from running again. What do you think? The comments are open! See you next week!
Further Reading
Sharpen Your Axe is a project to develop a community who want to think critically about the media, conspiracy theories and current affairs without getting conned by gurus selling fringe views. Please subscribe to get this content in your inbox every week. Shares on social media are appreciated! If this is the first post you have seen, I recommend starting with the first-anniversary post, which includes links to a free book.
Opinions expressed on Substack and Twitter are those of Rupert Cocke as an individual and do not reflect the opinions or views of the organization where he works or its subsidiaries.
Of course, it would be nice, theoretically. But then, considering there was no such backstop process available at the time, it was really up to the PM to apply the brakes to Brexit. She didn’t, so the question is moot. Is it a bad idea? No, I thinks it’s a great idea. But it would require the expenditure of a great deal of effort and political capital to put in place. Does this exist anywhere in the world of constitutional monarchies?
I've wrestled with this question recently after observing the raw, unfiltered, and thoroughly undignified behavior of the ex-US President. I define "dignified" behavior as primarily about respecting those with differing views. That means both setting an example for others to follow and providing a critical precondition for effective compromise. In this regard, Bagehot helped to institutionalize civility and compromise in public discourse. In America, the President has historically been assigned to set the tone for civil discourse, but as we have seen, the absence of institutional structures requiring this has led to a breakdown in civility and a dramatic deepening of the partisan divide. Can the situation be salvaged by assigning authority to a new unelected official whose role was not written into the Constitution? I don't see how, given Americans' deep-seated belief in the infallibility of their own democratic institutions and their historical opposition to any kind of monarchy. (Happy Independence Day, BTW)). As for your question, no urgent national issue, including Brexit, comes to mind as ever justifying royal intervention to overrule Parliament in the UK. I also wonder how, in terms of ways and means, any government would vote to allow such intervention to be codified into law.