The British monarchy should be abolished

1. Democracy is the preferable system of government. The trend in thought from the Reformation at least until the twentieth century has been an increasing subjectivity. Dogmatic certainties could no longer be justified. Individualism began to take over from deference to authority. The old power structures began to be replaced by more egalitarian systems.[1] Modern democracy is an outcome of individualism. It is a deterrent to tyranny over the people. By enabling all to have a say over who is in power, power is mitigated.The government have greater difficulty in performing unfair or unjust actions, because they are accountable to the people. The principle is that individuals are allowed to flourish in a state where all have basic rights, civil liberties and redress to the law. We can no longer justify innate rights of one human to be more powerful over another; people are to be treated equally. Democracy enables a natural sort of utilitarianism; its pressures ensure that the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number must be a factor in the decision making of any pragmatic politician. Democratic government enables the most broad canvassing of opinion and ideas, taking advantage of this diversity to thrash out considered policies. Democratic societies promote individual autonomy, and encourage citizens to think carefully and rationally. Democracy also has a positive moral effect in that the conditions for political debate are realized, encouraging citizens to not only justify their stances to others but unavoidably think in terms of the interests of others. 1a. Empirically, democracies avoid some of the terrible conditions seen under other forms of government. Due to limited space, I will develop this point in later rounds. 2. A monarchy is directly in opposition to the principles of democracy. There is an inherent contradiction in a state where all are supposed to be born equal with equal rights but has at its head an unelected enjoyer of privilege, to whom deference is supposed to be shown. The monarch does not rule on the merits of their competency, in fact they may be utterly incompetent and the public could not rid themselves of such a fool until death. The Queen holds weekly consultations with the Prime Minister. These meetings are private, and are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation: the public have no access to what is said.[2] The Queen is not accountable to the people. While it is not possible to prevent some private interests from having access to the Prime Minister, it is going beyond the pale to actually institutionalize the practice. 3. The sovereign has inordinate power. The sovereign (ruling monarch) can declare war, veto bills passed in the legislative houses, dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister, dismiss and appoint other ministers, summon Parliament, command the Armed Forces, commute the sentences of prisoners, ratify treaties, and receive diplomats.[3] An unelected person with narrow interests should not have these powers. Especially not to command the army. 4. The Privy council is undemocratic. The Privy Council, a council that advises the ruling monarch, can be used by government to bypass due process. Legislation passed by Privy Council does not have to go through parliament (the legislative houses) at all.[4] 5. The sovereign has no mandate to rule. The doctrine of the divine right of kings belongs to a more gullible age when the people had less opportunity for self-determination. Said doctrine is a Christian imposition, and Britain is a multi-faith state now, including a significant proportion of the non-religious. It is a doctrine that is poisonous to democracy, or any just government; The sovereign is a fallible human being, and some measure of temporal accountability is a necessary check on human ambition. Absent the divine right to rule, the sovereign has no mandate. Monarchy was historically justified in Britain by the notion of parental power. The ruling monarch was held to be a direct descendant of the first father, Adam.[5] John Locke pointed out that if parental power was concerned, then the mother's line is of equal value. Thus primogeniture with its preference for male heirs is not justified. Locke also mocks the notion that the monarch's bloodline can be traced to Adam. This is an obvious fiction. Furthermore, says Locke, parental power is temporary, relinquished at adulthood, and does not apply to life or property.[6] 6. Monarchy preserves harmful class structures. Class structures have been hugely detrimental in Britain to social mobility and a meritocratic society. In a survey conducted by FM Martin, the possibility of own business amongst those who self-identified as working class was 15%. For the self-identified middle class it was significantly higher: 22% of manual workers and 30% of professionals.[7] In a 2007 poll, 89% of Britons said they think people are judged by their class - with almost half saying that it counts for "a lot".[8] The UK has a worse record of social mobility than other developed countries. [9] The preservation of an aristocratic upper class, embodied by the monarchy, serves as a stark notice of the power of class and a deterrent to social mobility in Britain. 7. Abolishing the monarchy would provide an opportunity to have a written constitution. Unlike countries which have a written constitution, much of the UK system of government has been inherited from an undemocratic past. No rights guaranteed by the constitution. Parliament may pass any legislation that it wishes. This comes from the notion that the sovereign reigns by divine fiat. By contrast, in countries with a codified constitution, the legislature is normally forbidden from passing laws that contradict that constitution. Abolishing the monarchy would be a chance to put in place a codified constitution that would protect the rights and liberties of the British people. 8. The sovereign's duties can be taken up by those with a mandate to rule. Some of the sovereign's duties can be delegated downwards and others taken up by an elected President, accountable to the people. Any arguments for preserving the role of the monarch could apply to an elected official. [1] Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Counterpoint, pp20-21. [2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk... [3] http://www.royal.gov.uk... (various pages) [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] Murphy, Erin (2000-01-01). Familial Forms: Politics and Genealogy in Seventeenth-Century English Literature. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 2-3. http://books.google.co.uk... [6] Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Counterpoint. pp 596-599 [7] Some Subjective Aspects of Social Stratification, FM Martin, in Social Mobility in Britain, Eds David Victor Glass, Jerzy Berent, Taylor & Francis. http://books.google.co.uk... [8] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...