Constitutional monarchy is an impartial (non-party political), largely symbolic head of state whose powers are exercised by, and on the advice of, ministers, in theory subordinate to the will of Parliament, the people and the rules of the constitution. The British constitutional Monarchy was the consequence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Britain is the most typical monarchy country in the world.
But after all monarchy are not agreeing with the spirit of freedom? democracy and equality which people seek for thousand years, though it also has many advantages.Whether the advantages of the UK having a constitutional monarchy are greater than the disadvantages? If the advantages are grater than the disadvantages, of course we should keep it. Otherwise we will consider whether should drop it. So this is a very important question because the change of the system and the policies relates to the stability of the country. Firstly, let talk about some advantages of the constitutional monarchy which is not only simply a pleasant and harmless anachronism. The monarch is an impartial head of state and so provides a symbol of national unity and continuity.
Much popular defence of the Monarchy focuses on its role in attracting tourism, or on the Queen's long experience knowledge of British and international politics which may be a valuable source of advice to governments and Prime Ministers. Another strand of argument, especially apparent in the debate on the Monarchy since the death of the Queen Mother, makes a sentimental case, arguing that the country needs emotion at its core. Two primary tasks of monarchy can be identified. One is essentially a representative task: that is, symbolizing the unity and traditional standards of the nation.The second is to fulfill certain political functions.
In fact, as it has done for centuries, monarchy plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability, welfare and dignity of the nation. As the actual powers of the monarchy have declined, its symbolic and ceremonial functions have increased. It mainly represented six aspects: Represent the UK at home or abroad. Setting standards of citizenship and family life.
Uniting people despite differences. Allegiance of the armed forces. Maintaining continuity of British traditions. Preserving a Christian morality.Major political functions still remain with the monarch, such as the choice of Prime Minister, the right to withhold assent to legislation, the dispensing of ministerial portfolios, the dissolution of Parliament, and the declaring of war being among the most obvious.
England's royal family which has a history of three hundred year has became a power of restrict tache inside the democracy system of England. This is one of the reasons why most Englishmen still support constitutional monarchy shown in the mass observation, though a series of scandal about royal family has been disclosed in the past few years.Let's hear some criticisms of the monarchy. Some people think that monarchy was no longer the revered institution of preceding decades and its future became an issue of topical debate. Even at time of high support, it has never free of criticism.
In recently years, the criticisms have been fuelled by the activities of various members of the royal family. Especially the young royals are reproached for setting a bad example and failing to keep their marriages together by journalists who themselves lead Casanova-like lives.Approval of the symbolic role of the monarchy is a conservative view which favours the status quo and fears progressive change. The monarchy has an ideological role in promoting class hierarchy, hereditary privilege, snobbery and deference, and its existence reduces British citizens to mere subjects.
It is also anachronistic to have one established church in the modern, multicultural age. Heredity is no guarantee of merit and the aristocracy and patronage perpetuated by the institution of monarchy are undemocratic.New' Labour's arguments against hereditary peers should, logically, apply equally to the monarchy. The popularity of the monarchy is said by critics to be largely a product of socialization by the media, which trivializes the royal family whilst neglecting any pluralist debate about the political institution of the monarchy itself.
The scandals and salacious gossip which surrounded the lives and deaths of some of the minor royals have, anyway, seriously undermined the symbolism and popularity of the whole institution.The formal powers of the monarch, such as the royal assent, are redundant and should be abolished. The power and immunities conferred on the Prime Minister and others by the royal prerogative are dangerously undemocratic, by-passing Parliament and breaching the 'rule of law'. Four principal criticisms can be identified: that an unelected monarch has the power of exercise certain political powers; that, by virtue of being neither elected nor socially typical, the monarchy is unrepresentative; that maintaining the royal family costs too much; and that the institution of monarchy is now unnecessary.The last three criticisms have become more pronounced in recent years.
At a word, the main four disadvantages are ? Potential for political involvement. ?Unrepresentative. ?Overly expensive. ?Unnecessary. From above we can know constitutional monarchy is available system though it has many disadvantages, its advantages are greater than the disadvantages.
The answer to the question mentioned before depends on constitutional monarchy's roles and duties and our need.In my opinion, from the long view, these so-called royal monarchs will perforce step down the throne and regress to common citizens one day though we don't know the exact date. Whereas a system will form a sort of power while it last for several centuries, it can't disappear from the world easily. If the monarchy wants to last for more time, clearly it should be reform. Let us be frank.
The constitutional monarchy is almost a broken force. To be sure, there is little appetite for abolishing the monarchy - most people still want there to be someone called "the Queen" and to have pleasant state occasions.But this sentiment is, at most, a form of Royalism - a kind of fan-club for the Queen's family. If they are not to have a purely titular Monarchy, they must start proposing positive reform of the constitutional monarchy now, before it is too late. Because if they do not reform the constitutional monarchy themselves or if they do not argue for the virtues of the constitutional monarchy now, when reform comes - as it will - it will come at the hands of their opponents.
