Why we believe things have to change

Republicans believe that Britain deserves the best democracy we can create, where the people are sovereign and where those who run the state on our behalf owe allegiance to the people, not to an unelected hereditary monarch. In Britain today, the relationship between the people and the government is at its lowest ebb. There are many reasons for this modern-day malaise in British politics, but republicans believe that the monarchy is central to the problem.

Parliament may take its mandate to govern from the people, but it takes its authority from the crown.  This dangerous disconnection between the governors and the governed engenders a culture within parliament where public opinion is seen to count for little.  A political hierarchy with the monarch at its apex effectively excludes the people from having any say in the political process except for when it’s time to ask us for our votes.

Modern Britain is a multicultural, multi-faith country with an extraordinarily diverse mix of people from different social and ethnic backgrounds.  In contrast, the principle of an hereditary monarchy automatically means that the head of state can never be drawn from anything other than a very small and particular section of the population.  That this one function of government should be appointed only by an accident of birth is absurd.   There are no hereditary judges, mathematicians or poet laureates.  Why should the hereditary principle apply so uniquely to just one job?

The monarchy is symbolic of deference, of inherited privilege and of secret influence beyond the gaze of public scrutiny.  The flummery and paraphenalia with which so much of parliamentary procedure is mired may entertain the tourists, but it also encourages an addiction to nostalgia.  “Because that’s the way it’s always been” is not reason or justification for perpetuating the system. (In any case, many so-called traditions relating to the pomp and ceremony of state functions are relatively recent inventions.) We can acknowledge our history and heritage, but that doesn’t mean we have to live for ever in the past.

The principle of an hereditary monarchy harks back to a time when everyone was expected to know their place and accepted their lot in life.  That is no longer a picture of civil life that most of want to see in modern Britain. Yet the omnipresent monarchy and the deferential system of patronage that it represents still sits like a dead weight on society, stifling ambition, aspiration and innovation in our political system.

The vast majority of us now recognise that politics in Britain no longer works for the people.  The country is crying out for change, yet reform moves at a snail’s pace because the monarchy gets in the way. The enormous and unlimited power that the monarchy confers on the government makes it extremely reluctant to adopt meaningful reform of the system in case that power comes under full scrutiny and is threatened by genuine democratic change. When change is proposed, the monarchy’s supporters demand that nothing is adopted that might jeopardise the Queen’s position, independence or authority. The deference and sycophancy shown by many in positions of power towards the royals places the most important and fundamental reforms outside the political debate.  A political system that is not capable of changing and adapting to the challenges and opportunities of the modern world is one that is not fit for purpose.

There is no good argument for monarchy beyond a desire to retain the status quo from those who are in the best position to gain most from it.  Instead, we believe in nothing less than a new republican constitution that inspires aspiration and a sense of civic responsibility.

< The current position

What’s the alternative? >