Is a Parliamentary Republic Better than a Constitutional Monarchy?
A president is no better than a king. What matters is the parliament.
I arrived in Australia in 2000, when it didn’t become a republic. The 1999 referendum received considerable attention in Asia, but not many Asians believed that an Australian republic would be better for Asia. In fact, citizens from Commonwealth countries in Asia (none of them headed by Elizabeth II) wondered how an Australian republic would affect their privileges in accessing Australia.
Australian republicanism has arisen again lately, following the loss of the Liberal-National Coalition federal government and the death of Elizabeth II. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that the republic referendum is not his priority in his first term.
In the UK, Canada, and Australia, the republicans are still split on how the head of state would be chosen. But whether through election or selection, the symbolism could play a role. Informally, Singapore expects its presidents to be rotated by race, and three out of four governors-general of Canada in the 21st century are women. Two of them are not European.
A parliamentary republic – where the government is accountable to the parliament – is a decent substitute for a constitutional monarchy, but it often comes from awkward history. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic come out of the world war. Finland and Ireland experienced centuries of colonization. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are republics because it’d be impossible for them to form constitutional monarchies.
Before the birth of the United States of America, a republic was a fringe form of government. The Dutch Republic had become irrelevant in 18th century Europe, as it lost the War of the Austrian Succession in 1748 and stayed out of the Seven Years’ War in 1756. The Protectorate (Motto: “Peace Through War”) still serves as a reminder of why an English republic is not a brilliant idea.
Now republic is the most popular form of government worldwide, even authoritarian states like North Korea and Iran call themselves republics.
In the late 19th century, new nations like Germany, Japan, and Italy turned themselves into constitutional monarchies because constitutional monarchy worked in the United Kingdom. Their failures to keep strong parliaments led to fascism in the 1930s. After 1945, many new nations became republics following the American example – or the USSR’s.
More parliamentary republics appeared after 1990, to separate from their histories of single-party dictatorship. Among them are the Republic of China, Hungary, and Ethiopia. In most cases, except notably in Taiwan, the prime minister or their equivalent is more influential and famous than the president.
Parliamentary republic versus constitutional monarchy
Presumably, in a Canadian, Australian, or English republic, the power remains at the hand of the prime minister, while the head of state is a president (please spare us from any ridiculous title). Parliamentary republics pick their presidents through the parliament or direct election. Some countries like Germany and India also involve state delegates.
So far, a parliamentary republic seems to be more sensible than a constitutional monarchy. Seems economical and democratic. Less expensive parades and the obscurity of the presidents would mean fewer scandals (without Googling, name the president of Germany or the president of India). Plus, more taxable estates. Only royal gossipers and romance novelists would rue the end of constitutional monarchy.
Sadly, “Economical and democratic” is not the phrase that opponents of the House of Windsor use to press their case. Instead, they say that a republic is a more powerful representative of the people, more just, and more relevant to the times.
Meanwhile, constitutional monarchies also prove that they are among the best-run places on Earth. Scandinavian kingdoms. Japan. And well, Australia and New Zealand themselves. The monarchy-skeptic liberal Americans often praise Canada as the better country.
Interestingly, it’s harder for a constitutional monarchy to fail, while parliamentary republics have mixed records. You can become Singapore, Iceland, or Israel. Or you can become Pakistan, Somalia, or Lebanon. Successful constitutional monarchies have well-developed societies, solid economies, strong constitutions, and importantly, monarchies that aim to represent the nation and its long history.
Here you have two options: An imperfect monarch that can both inspire and disappoint, or a forgettable president whose only job is cutting the ribbon and well, preventing the prime minister from holding absolute power. Again, in several Commonwealth countries, the president is just the continuation of the governor-general. A parliamentary presidential election is not a very thrilling spectacle.
Is republicanism for everyone?
I thought that criticisms against Elizabeth II would come just weeks after her death, but social media (especially Twitter) release them almost instantly. Including the mention of the republican future of Australia and Canada, interestingly pushed forward by the American media.
And because we live in a time where political arguments are emotional, “Economical and democratic” is not put forward as the main argument. Instead, the monarchy is said to represent colonialism and white supremacy, while a republic would represent racial diversity and indigenous voice.
Diversity and indigenous voices, of course, are already well-represented in parliamentary democracy, whether through political representatives or through public broadcast and news websites. None of the top four ministers in the current British government is a white man. Media in Western constitutional monarchies frequently produce writings, documentaries, and TV series centered on immigrant, queer, and indigenous voices.
Yes, Charles III is not elected by any Australian or Scottish MP, but the snotty Americans who think that election is their specialty hardly care about the elections of Irish and Italian presidents either. Again, what matters is the parliamentary election, with results that may please you or not.
The future of a Scottish or a Welsh republic is both plausible and interesting. Will they prompt other regions in Europe to hold referenda too? Would other nations, like Spain or France, support London just to prevent their people from having funny ideas? How will Scotland and Wales do compared to other post-1990 European states?
And shall we see a republic turn into a constitutional monarchy? Or a Commonwealth republic reverting to the Crown?
Interestingly, in Canada republicanism also attracts some right-wing citizens, who believe the current system is too liberal and paternalistic. In Australia republicanism seems to be a left-of-the-center passion. The proponents love to think of themselves as working-class progressives (as many university graduates do) and judge Australian monarchists as White Australia bigots who deny the diversity of modern Australia.
In 1999, some proponents of the Australian Republic argued that it’d improve Australian relations with Asia, as Asia would not see Australia as a colonial relic anymore. This argument still holds, along with the new argument that the republic would represent indigenous Australians better.
Maybe it sounds lovely for Green voters, but common Australians won’t see the point. Again, Asians are fine with the Commonwealth, and the whole Western world is basically diverse and liberal by now, even more than the rest. Quality of life in Australia is decided by the prime minister and local governments, not by the head of state. In any case, a high-quality First Nations minister or Premier will inspire the public better than a president.
A parliamentary republic is lovely to have (if you’re worried about the head of government’s absolute power), but a constitutional monarchy is also worth the keep. If there’s no harm in running a working republic, there’s also no harm in running a working constitutional monarchy.