   #copyright

Constitutional monarchy

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Politics and government

   Constitutional monarchies with representative parliamentary systems are
   shown in red. Other constitutional monarchies (shown in magenta) have
   monarchs who continue to exercise political influence, albeit within
   certain legal restrictions.
   Enlarge
   Constitutional monarchies with representative parliamentary systems are
   shown in red. Other constitutional monarchies (shown in magenta) have
   monarchs who continue to exercise political influence, albeit within
   certain legal restrictions.

   A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchical government
   established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected
   or hereditary monarch as head of state. Modern constitutional
   monarchies usually implement the concept of trias politica or
   "separation of powers", where the monarch either is the head of the
   executive branch or simply has a ceremonial role. Where a monarch holds
   absolute power, it is known as an absolute monarchy. The process of
   government and law within an absolute monarchy can be very different
   from that in a constitutional monarchy.

   In representative democracies that are constitutional monarchies, like
   the United Kingdom, the monarch may be regarded as the head of state
   but the prime minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from
   elections, is head of government.

   Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative
   democracies (called constitutional democratic monarchies), this has not
   always historically been the case. There have been monarchies which
   have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or
   quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy, Japan and Spain, or with
   military dictatorships, as is currently the case in Thailand.

Differences between constitutional and absolute monarchies

Absolute monarchy

   In theoretical absolutism, a monarch rules with total power. Towards
   the end of the Middle Ages and following the Reformation, religious
   wars, the decline of the church, and a growing middle class resulted in
   the emergence of absolute leaders to provide guarantees of order. The
   concept of "divine right" often, as in the case of King James I/VI
   (King James I of England, James VI, King of Scots) covered as a
   justification for abuses of absolute power.

   In a situation where one individual who is not necessarily knowledgable
   about economics makes all economic decisions, the economy can be
   seriously damaged by imprudent allocation of funds. For example, Louis
   XIV of France abused his control of money by spending it on his Palace
   of Versailles and on wars that did not benefit France. According to
   Early Modern France, (Robin Briggs, 1998, ISBN), at the end of Louis
   XIV's reign, the French Royal Family was in debt 2 billion livres or
   about $21 billion. This debt, combined with the awkward tax structure
   of the country, was a contributing factor in the French Revolution.
   However, other historians argue that the tax-exempt status of the
   nobility and the Church was a more important cause of France's budget
   deficit.

   If the absolute monarch favors one group over another, a reduction of
   personal freedoms may result. King Louis XIV demonstrated this when he
   overrode the Edict of Nantes and forcibly exiled the Huguenots from
   France.

Constitutional monarchy

   A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or
   queen reigns with limits to their power along with a governing body
   (i.e. Parliament), giving rise to the modern adage "the Queen reigns
   but does not rule". A constitutional monarchy was able to form in
   England across different periods of history for a complex combination
   of reasons: sometimes due to a lack of strong leadership, and at other
   times due to strong leaders short of funding, who needed to raise money
   to prosecute wars, and needed to address public grievances to ensure
   this money was forthcoming. Historically, the English had not believed
   in the "Divine Right of Kings": ever since Magna Carta in 1215, the
   monarchy had been regarded as a contractual political instrument. In
   the 17th Century, abuse of power by the Stuart dynasty, and their
   attempts to import the doctrine of "Divine Right" from Scotland, caused
   the English to question the royal authority and revive earlier
   safeguards against executive power. Parliament took several key steps
   to limit the power of the King. They revived the English instrument of
   impeachment, which held the King's ministers to be responsible for his
   actions; hence the King's servants could be executed for implementing
   unpopular policies. They forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Right
   that re-affirmed that the King must go through Parliament to enact new
   laws, taxes, etc. After signing the Petition of Right, Charles I
   immediately ignored it, precipitating the English Civil Wars, and the
   eventual beheading of the King for treason. This sent a message to
   future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power.
   During the reign of Charles II, Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus.
   The Habeas Corpus Act said that any prisoner taken by the King would be
   given a trial. This prevented the King from simply removing his enemies
   by sending them to jail. When James II took the throne many people did
   not appreciate it when he flaunted his Catholicism. Therefore
   Parliament flexed its muscles once again by asking William of Orange to
   overthrow the king. William and his wife Mary came from the Netherlands
   and overthrew James II without bloodshed. This was called the “Glorious
   Revolution”. Once William and Mary had gained control of the throne,
   they completely supported the constitutional monarchy. Together they
   signed the Bill of Rights, which severely limited the power of the
   king, and gave more freedom to his subjects. One supporter of
   constitutional monarchy was John Locke. He wrote in his “ Treatises on
   Government” that a direct democracy is the best form of government. He
   wrote that people are able to improve and rule themselves, and that
   people have three main rights. These rights are life, liberty, and
   property, and it is the government’s job to protect these rights. He
   also wrote that if the government is unjust the people have the right
   to overthrow it, a doctrine that was invoked during the American
   Revolution.

   This evolution in thinking would eventually spawn such movements as
   universal suffrage and political parties. By the mid 20th Century, the
   political culture in Europe had shifted to the point where all
   constitutional monarchs had been reduced to the status of effective
   figureheads, with no effective power at all. Instead, it was the
   democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime
   minister who had become the true rulers of the nation. In many cases
   even the monarchs themselves, who once sat at the very top of the
   political and social hierarchy, were given the status of "servants of
   the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian reality.

Constitutional monarchies today

   The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world
   today are the sixteen Realms of the Commonwealth of Nations, all
   independent parliamentary democracies under a common monarch, currently
   Queen Elizabeth II. Unlike the United Kingdom, almost all of the other
   countries within the Commonwealth have written constitutions with
   complex processes for constitutional change. Through political crises,
   peaceful constitutional drafting and international debate, the
   Westminster conventions concerning the constitutional monarch have
   gained much clearer definition in the other fifteen Realms than in the
   United Kingdom. In many of these constitutions, the monarch or the
   representative of the Crown is regarded as an integral part of the
   executive and legislative branches of government, and that position is
   explicitly protected, at least in part, by the written constitution.

   Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Westminster
   monarch and her representatives retain significant "reserve" or
   "prerogative" powers, to be wielded only in times of extreme emergency
   or constitutional crises (e.g., Australia 1975, Grenada 1983, Solomon
   Islands 1994), usually to uphold parliamentary government. In such
   instances, a lack of understanding by the public of constitutional
   convention can cause controversy. For example, in the 1975 dismissal of
   the Whitlam government in Australia, Governor General John Kerr was
   widely blamed for his intervention over the supply crisis, much to the
   bewilderment of British and Canadian constitutional scholars. Instead a
   number of these authorities such as Lord Hailsham (the former Lord
   Chancellor of the United Kingdom) and Senator Eugene Forsey (the
   leading Canadian constitutional authority on the reserve powers of the
   Crown) argued that the blame for the crisis in Australia and its
   outcome should have been directed at the then Leader of the Opposition,
   Malcolm Fraser, who was both politically responsible for refusing
   supply and causing the immediate crisis, and who was formally
   responsible for the Whitlam dismissal under the Westminster conventions
   concerning exercise of the reserve powers. Based on this controversy,
   legal commentators have since argued that public understanding of the
   Crown's constitutional role must be heightened if monarchs are to
   survive even the legitimate exercises of their duties in a time of
   crisis.

   With the exception of post-war Italy, no modern, democratic
   constitutional monarchy has voted to abolish itself, but Greece voted
   against reestablishing its constitutional monarchy after the military
   government had been ousted.

   Though many of Europe's past and present leftist parties contain
   anti-monarchy factions, to date few have openly declared a preference
   for flat-out monarchial abolition, and instead use their powers to
   curtail and reform alleged "un-democratic" or "prejudiced" elements of
   the monarchy. For example, in recent years the age-old tradition of
   "males first" order of succession to the throne has been abolished in
   some European constitutional monarchies, allowing for eldest daughters
   to assume the throne before their brothers.

   One common view as to why modern constitutional monarchies continue to
   survive is that the individual royal families themselves have remained
   popular. Today, most contemporary royal families go out of their way to
   project a modern image to the citizenry of a monarchy that is both
   caring and interested in the people and their country. Many members of
   modern royal families frequently make donations or participate in
   charity events, visit poor or sick citizens, and make public
   appearances at high profile sporting or arts events. Such moves can
   help make a monarchy seem contemporarily relevant, especially when the
   royals themselves get involved within the community. As long as a
   monarchy can remain popular in the public eye, there is little reason
   for the politicians to meddle, and those who do can easily find
   themselves at the receiving end of harsh public criticism.

   Other defenders of constitutional monarchies argue that royal families
   promote tourism, and are a (key) tradition associated with patriotism
   and national pride. For example, in many constitutional monarchies the
   monarch's birthday is a national holiday, and an event marked with
   public patriotic events and parties. In recent years many royal
   families have also become popular targets of tabloid journalism and
   gossip, which although often argued as being intrusive and destructive,
   continues to prove that many find royals interesting simply as
   celebrities. A further argument speculates that abolishing a popular
   monarchy may be a pointless endeavor anyway, as even a "deposed" royal
   family could presumably still live their royal lifestyle and capture
   public attention, making any republican replacement seem illegitimate.
   Historically, when monarchies have been abolished the royal family was
   usually exiled to a foreign country to prevent their presence from
   interfering or distracting from the new republican government. However,
   such moves were usually done during periods of conflict and turmoil
   with the monarchy. If a democratic country was to abolish its monarchy
   today, an exile for the royal family would likely be denounced as
   cruel, and would thus not be seen as a practical option.

   In the 20th century, a much more politically sophisticated view in
   favour of preserving constitutional monarchies in parliamentary
   democracies has emerged, for example, in the case of Queen Elizabeth
   II, in terms of the usefulness of an observer within the Executive who
   is unaffiliated with political parties, who does not owe her job
   security to the Prime Minister of the day, and who can afford to
   scrutinise political controversies that may sweep the incumbent Prime
   Minister from office. She has no policy powers -- that is the domain of
   the elected government, headed by the Prime Minister -- but she is a
   required, formal co-signatory to political instruments, who has a
   personal stake in protecting constitutional government from
   non-justifiable abuses. The most famous advocates of this view were
   Canadian historian Eugene Forsey (later a Canadian senator, whose
   defence of the monarchy formed part of his doctoral thesis in history
   at Oxford) and Australian lawyer H.V. Evatt (later a High Court Judge
   and Australian attorney-general, whose treatment of Westminster law
   concerning the monarch and reserve powers was the basis of his doctoral
   thesis in law). It is interesting to note both Forsey and Evatt were
   social democrats, heavily involved in the labour movements of their
   respective countries. Their work built on that of Alpheus Todd, the
   19th Century Librarian of the Canadian House of Commons. Todd's
   encyclopedic work effectively contradicted the popularly-known,
   class-obsessed treatise by Walter Bagehot, whose opinions on the
   monarchy as a "bauble" to distract the "lower" classes remain
   influential in Britain. In recent decades Bagehot has been effectively
   discredited, his historical, political and legal assumptions disproved.
   (For example, his belief that the Queen's position exists solely at the
   pleasure of the British Parliament, without reference to the
   electorate, does not withstand detailed scrutiny.)

   Ironically, given the public perception of wealth and privilege
   associated with monarchy, the Todd/Evatt/Forsey case argues that the
   reserve powers of the Crown and the peculiar nature of the office
   render it a useful, if limited, asset against the "presidential"
   aspirations of prime ministers, and a superior safeguard for Executive
   oversight than anything available in a republican context. The case
   suggests she is an external observer who, when combined with the
   conventions of ministerial responsibility, enhances the democratic
   accountability of the Executive branch to the elected legislature, and
   the accountability of the elected legislature to the electorate. Put
   simply, requiring prime ministers to bow the knee and show deference
   and humility on a regular basis is a useful way of keeping their egos
   under control.

   (See Nigel Greenwood, "For the Sovereignty of the People", Australian
   Academic Press, 1999, for a discussion of the Crown as a legal and
   political instrument of parliamentary democracy in the Westminster
   system, giving a detailed examination of Todd, Evatt and Forsey, and a
   contrast-and-compare of modern US and French problems with 20th Century
   executive lawlessness; e.g. the post-Watergate findings of the US
   congressional committees re the absence of an executive figure outside
   the corrupted chain of command. See also Evatt and Forsey on the
   Reserve Powers, Legal Books, Sydney Australia, 1990; Todd, A.,
   Parliamentary Government in England, Longman Green, London 1869.)

Previous monarchies

     * The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, formed after the Union of
       Lublin in 1569 and lasting till the final partition of the state in
       1795 operated much like many modern European constitutional
       monarchies. The legislators of the unified state truly did not see
       it as a monarchy at all, but as a republic under the presidency of
       the King. Poland-Lithuania also followed the principle of "Rex
       regnat et non gubernat," had a bicameral parliament, and a
       collection of entrenched legal documents amounting to a
       constitution along the lines of the modern United Kingdom of Great
       Britain. The King was elected, and had the duty of maintaining the
       people's rights.
     * France functioned briefly as a constitutional monarchy during the
       post-Napoleonic age, under the reign of Louis XVIII and Charles X,
       but the latter's attempt at reinstating absolute monarchy led to
       his fall. Louis-Philippe of France was also a constitutional
       monarch.
     * Napoléon Bonaparte, as Emperor of the French, was a constitutional
       monarch, though he was ousted from France before his line could
       continue.
     * The German Empire from 1871 to 1918, (as well as earlier
       confederations, and the monarchies it consisted of) was also a
       constitutional monarchy, see Constitution of the German Empire.
     * Prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran was a constitutional
       monarchy (briefly) under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, which had been
       originally established during the Persian Constitutional Revolution
       in 1906.
     * Portugal until 1910 was a constitutional monarchy and the last king
       was Manuel II of Portugal.
     * Hawaii was a constitutional monarchy from the unification of the of
       the smaller independent chiefdoms of Oʻahu, Maui, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi
       and the Hawaiʻi (or the "Big Island") in 1810 until the overthrow
       of Queen Liliʻuokalani in 1893.
     * The Grand Duchy of Finland was a constitutional monarchy though its
       ruler, the Tsar of Russia was an autocrat and absolute ruler in his
       home country.

Trivia

     * In all historical sources as well as modern literature on systems
       of government the United Kingdom is given as a first constitutional
       monarchy, as well as an example of constitutional monarchy. These
       distinctions show that a constitutional monarchy does not require
       that the constitution be codified (written).
     * Japan is the only country with a reigning emperor.
     * Luxembourg is the only country with a reigning Grand Duke.

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
