debate on consitutional monarch is good
Answers
Answered by
7
DEBATE
A well organised constitutional monarchy is essentially the best way to ensure an effective system of checks and balance between the various organs of government.
In a US style presidency the head of state is head of government, and holds far more power than either the PM or Monarch does in a constitutional monarchy.
Since the government in the UK, for example, is Her/His Majesty's Government, the PM cannot simply veto it's decisions as the president can in the US. Meanwhile, since the Monarch is not the head of government s/he cannot simply over-ride it either.
The House of Parliament is subject to the whims of electoral politics ,and s such it is possible a radical government could be elected. However, the House of Lords, not being directly elected, would be not subject to this same event, and so can act as a brake on any excessive actions carried out by Parliament.
In addition, the Monarch holds some reserve powers that help restrain the powers of parliament, and must formally accept the nomination of prime minister and also give Royal Assent to acts of parliament (the latter can now sometimes be done by the PM through the altering of royal prerogatives)
As well as this the fact that the nation has a non-political head of state is held to be a unifying factor, that people can identify with the nation through a non partisan figure, which also is a huge advantage in diplomatic dealings, helping in the smoothing over of issues caused by a particular PM. Since the Monarch is permanent, the head of state is far more experienced than that of countries with elected heads of state, and gives the nation a sense of continuity and links to it's culture and heritage that a politician can never provide.
There is concern in the UK in some quarters that the erosion of royal prerogatives, with more and more functions transferred to the PM, and the introduction of increasing numbers of former MP's and parliament appointed peers into the House of Lords is eroding the traditional balance of power and systems of checks and balances, and handing too much power to Parliament.
A well organised constitutional monarchy is essentially the best way to ensure an effective system of checks and balance between the various organs of government.
In a US style presidency the head of state is head of government, and holds far more power than either the PM or Monarch does in a constitutional monarchy.
Since the government in the UK, for example, is Her/His Majesty's Government, the PM cannot simply veto it's decisions as the president can in the US. Meanwhile, since the Monarch is not the head of government s/he cannot simply over-ride it either.
The House of Parliament is subject to the whims of electoral politics ,and s such it is possible a radical government could be elected. However, the House of Lords, not being directly elected, would be not subject to this same event, and so can act as a brake on any excessive actions carried out by Parliament.
In addition, the Monarch holds some reserve powers that help restrain the powers of parliament, and must formally accept the nomination of prime minister and also give Royal Assent to acts of parliament (the latter can now sometimes be done by the PM through the altering of royal prerogatives)
As well as this the fact that the nation has a non-political head of state is held to be a unifying factor, that people can identify with the nation through a non partisan figure, which also is a huge advantage in diplomatic dealings, helping in the smoothing over of issues caused by a particular PM. Since the Monarch is permanent, the head of state is far more experienced than that of countries with elected heads of state, and gives the nation a sense of continuity and links to it's culture and heritage that a politician can never provide.
There is concern in the UK in some quarters that the erosion of royal prerogatives, with more and more functions transferred to the PM, and the introduction of increasing numbers of former MP's and parliament appointed peers into the House of Lords is eroding the traditional balance of power and systems of checks and balances, and handing too much power to Parliament.
Similar questions