I do agree there are some laws that could do with updating, like the one banning a person in the line of succession from marrying a Catholic and the one requiring permission from the sovereign for anyone in the line of succession to marry, which, IIRC, was only made into law because of the antics of some of the Hanoverian princes.
However, I think the system of a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch has a lot of advantages, particularly in light of recent history. The idea of having elected politicians in government works a lot better when there's an effective opposition to act as a counterweight of sorts than when there's no opposition. In Parliament, and in the US Congress and Senate, there are representatives of all the major parties and the one in power can't just do exactly as it pleases in all things because there'll eventually be some significant opposition if the party in power tries to abuse its majority position. Even the Prime Minister is only there as long as his party is the one with the largest number of elected representatives.
On the other hand, the Head of State is a one-of position, with no opposition and usually with advisors who are appointed rather than elected. In the whole of the US Executive Branch, there are two elected officials, who are elected together as a package deal, since the Vice President is on the President's ticket and doesn't run independently. All the major cabinet posts are filled by appointees whose primary recommendation for the position appears to be loyalty to the President, whereas in a parliamentary system they're filled by elected MPs. I don't think the notion of an elected politician in a role like that is an altogether healthy one because he isn't in a position where people can easily say "no" to him, and he can always say that since he was elected, he has a mandate to do any number of things that are damaging in the medium and long term, when he won't be around to have to deal with the fallout.
The other thing I think is dangerous about that sort of setup is the way the Head of State position can be manipulated by the incumbent to equate patriotism with support of his political party. I've been seeing a lot of cases on discussion boards where Democrats and other liberals are actually being called traitors simply for disagreeing with the President and/or supporting the other party. It's very easy for the Head of State to wrap himself in the flag and announce that in these uncertain times people should rally to him and support the country, when what he really means is that people who disagree with his party's position on things should shut up. That isn't how democracies are supposed to work.
If a Prime Minister started trying to give the impression of being the focus and embodiment of the nation, people would either ridicule him for having delusions of grandeur or be downright disgusted at the attempt to twist the system to his own advantage. In a constitutional democracy it's clear that the Prime Minister is the head of the government and a senior party politician, and is going to act as such, and the monarch is Head of State and has the long-term good of the country at heart, not the short- and medium-term goal of reelection.
I really think the criticism of constitutional monarchies for having an unelected Head of State is misplaced; IMO it's a strength of the system, not a weakness.
|