Posted by Eugene Volokh:
A Better Sort of King:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_13-2009_09_19.shtml#1253222113
[Warning: None of this is remotely related to any area of expertise
that I actually possess.]
So I've long been annoyed by monarchies -- including the most
milquetoast Western European constitutional monarchies -- just on
general small-r republican principles. My objection, when it comes to
the liberties and welfare of the people, is almost entirely symbolic
and aesthetic, given that the monarchs don't really -arch any more.
But I'm also troubled by how monarchy distorts the lives of the Royal
Family's children. It gives them unfair advantages, of the sort that
can be harmful as well as helpful. But it also imposes on them unfair
constraints. They may well be limited (perhaps legally and perhaps by
family honor) in whom they can marry. They are limited by family
obligation in what they can say, what causes they can champion, what
jobs they can go into, and so on. It's very hard for them to lead any
sort of private life in which they are judged by the normal standards
applicable to ordinary people.
And this isn't something they voluntarily chose; it's thrust upon
them, for their whole lives. This is in some measure true for younger
children of democratically elected politicians as well, but my sense
is that it's much more true at least for the British royals and, I'd
guess, for many others as well. Hereditary privileges, obligations,
rights, and constraints are, I think, unfair and potentially
destructive to their holders.
Yet I have to recognize that it's hard to dislodge centuries-old
traditions, such as the monarchy, that are emotionally important to
citizens. The traditions can change, even quite substantially, as they
have with regard to royal power and royal constraint. But simply
shifting from a monarchy to a republic, with no reason other than
aesthetics or a worry about the welfare of the royal children, is
probably too much.
Hence, my humble proposal: Why not retain the monarchy, but (1) stop
its being hereditary, and (2) institute a practice through which the
figurehead monarch is chosen by Parliament based on his or her great
accomplishments during his or her long life (preferably at least 60
years or so)? The offer to Albert Einstein of the Presidency of Israel
(an offer that he of course declined) might be something of a model,
though you'd expect Presidents to wear socks. The advantages:
1. The titles, trappings, and most other incidents of monarchy will
be preserved, but the symbolism of royalty will become recognition
based on great merit, rather than hereditary right.
2. I expect the affection of the people for the office will also be
preserved, since I take it that people who love the Queen love her
chiefly because she's the Queen and not because she can trace her
lineage to the Electress Sophia of Hanover. (I recognize that some
love Queen Elizabeth II is because she's been queen for so long,
which my proposal wouldn't provide for; but I take it that many
other Kings and Queens reign for less than Queen Elizabeth II has,
and that the length of the reign is not the main determiner of the
nation's affection for the monarch.)
3. The tangible and symbolic benefits will in fact be given to those
who merit them, and not based on accident of birth.
4. The King or Queen will be someone schoolchildren will have good
reason to admire, and that foreign dignitaries and others may
actually be independently pleased to meet.
5. The selected person will be a known quantity, so people with bad
character -- or even personal habits that might be perfectly fine
in a private citizen but might not be optimal in a head of state
-- can be screened out up front..
6. The selected person's family will still be delighted, but in most
situations the children won't even have to grow up in the shadow
of the parent's office (since the children will probably already
be adult by then), much less feel substantial constraint on their
lives from the parent's position.
7. Because the person will be near the end of their career, the
potentially time-consuming ceremonial duties of royalty will
probably not take that much away from the value that the monarch
could contribute in the science or art that brought him to the
throne. (And wouldn't it be good for the worry to be that having
your King be King will make it harder for him to make still more
great discoveries or creations?) But the monarch's elevation might
make the monarch an effective spokesman for more private
contributions to that science or art.
8. Now that the monarchy is largely powerless, the historical
objection to elective monarchy and in favor of hereditary monarchy
-- that in each election so much will be at stake that the nation
will come close to civil war -- will obviously not be available.
While there might be some behind-the-scenes dirty politics in such
elections, as in any political endeavor, the practical peril posed
by such politics would be minimal.
So, our British, Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, etc. readers -- are you with
me?
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
