jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) (02/07/86)
Frank Adams has repeatedly asserted the claim that England's "constitutional monarchy" is a democracy. To answer this I quote someone who has lived under British Rule throughout his life. In his book (published by Mercier Press) "An End to Silence", Reverend Desmond Wilson states: "The Northern Ireland situation is represented as a great British democracy - one of the greatest in the world - standing at a great cost to itself between undemocratic warring factions there. But the British system of government cannot properly be called a modern democracy.... For example, no modern democrat is likely to accept an hereditary monarchy irrevocably attached to a single rich and powerful family, the most militarist in the European Community. We read with dismay about military juntas in other countries but the existence in Britain of an exceptionally rich royal family whose members are highly placed in the armed forces never excites even a comment. That a monarch can be at one and the same time head of the armed forces, head of state and head of a state church may seem little more than a quaint ritualistic survival of past glory, but since the powers of the monarch within the British system are great, ill-defined and not controlled by a written constitution, what we are dealing with in Britain is not, in this particular case, a modern democracy so much as a modified, archaic and still powerful monarchical system of government. If we were to read of the wife of some dictator in a dynastic South American dictatorship acting in all these capacities, we would murmur about the nature of the regime. When it happens in Britain we seem to have an inbuilt desire to believe somehow it must be all right. The queen mother as an admiral of the fleet or the husband of the queen as the head of the armed forces contrasts with the provisions of the Irish Constitution (1937) which vests supreme command of the armed forces in a president elected by the people, not in a rich family whose powers pass on from mother and father to sons and daughters whether people approve of them or not. The upper house in the British parliamentary system is also undemocratic. There is no other nation in the European Community which allows an upper house that is unelected and consists largely of rich landowners to have any effective say in the making of their laws. Under the Irish Constitution such an institution is impossible. The desire to portray the British system of government as superior and the Irish as inferior has prevented any discussion of the nature of the British political system. The upper house of the British parliamentary system consists of about 1,000 lords, most of whom have their titles and wealth by hereditary succession. Comparatively few members are 'life peers', that is, men and women who are not aristocrats but are placed in the House of Lords to give it a more democratic appearance and to introduce an element of the popular voice. The life peers are chosen by the prime minister and other party leaders and created by the monarch and so are a strictly controlled group in quality and numbers. In some cases life peers have been created who had already been rejected by the vote of the people. Lord Fitt, for example, was made a life peer in 1983 having been rejected by the voters of West Belfast that same year. It is argued that the House of Lords has little power. If it has any power at all over the making of laws, then by this much its influence in the British system is undemocratic. As I have already said, there is no other nation in the European Community which allows a house of rich landowners and state-appointed churchmen to have an almost final say in the passing of its laws; laws have to be approved by the unelected lords and final approval must given by the hereditary monarch. Irish people may remember in this connection that on one occasion (1893) it was not the British people who prevented home rule (independent government) for Ireland, not the British cabinet, not even the British Commons elected by the people; it was the unelected House of Lords. No modern democracy would willingly tolerate a state church. In Britain there is a state church whose bishops are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister of the day. One or both could be agnostics but nevertheless they appoint the Christian bishops of the state (Anglican) church. In return twenty-six of the state-appointed bishops are allowed to sit and to vote in the House of Lords. In Ireland there is no state church. The recognition given to the Catholic church in the 1937 Constitution - that it was the guardian of the faith of the majority of Irish citizens - was considered by the people as going much too far and deleted. When we discuss the sectarian nature of the Irish state as against the widely assumed pluralist nature of the British state, such things are never mentioned. British political writers do not know the full extent nor the precise nature of the powers which the monarch has in her Privy Council. The Privy Council consisting of some 300 people chosen by the monarch herself can make decisions which are, as the word 'privy' denotes, secret. Members of the Privy Council take an oath of secrecy about their discussions. The British accept it and are powerless to change it. We speak of the 'British' government but what we are actually dealing with is an English government. Most of the members of the British cabinet are elected for English constituencies. There is a Secretary of State for Scotland, one for Wales and one for Northern Ireland, but while they have powers which exceed anyone else's in these areas, in the cabinet they have practically no power at all. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not even Irish. The important posts in cabinet are held by members elected by English people for English constituencies. Northern Ireland is a corrupt state... When our institutions, courts, parliament, police and churches fail to do what they were founded to do they are inefficient - but when they turn upside down and do the opposite of what they were intended to do they are corrupt; courts which dispense injustice, parliaments which work for the advantage of only a section of the people, police who attack rather than defend, churches which contribute not to human dignity but to human pain. To say the state is corrupt is not necessarily to blame the people; politicians and churchmen there have consistently failed to create an idealism which would match that of the people as a whole. But now in the North of Ireland lawyers admit that the courts condemn the innocent, churchmen admit that more and more Christians are finding their way out of churches rather than unbelievers into them, torture has been used, is being used, to extract confessions of guilt while many citizens believe that if they call it 'ill-treatment' it ceases to be wrong..." "These people know nothing of democracy." - Margaret Thatcher
garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (02/12/86)
In a recent article jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) wrote: > > Frank Adams has repeatedly asserted the claim that England's >"constitutional monarchy" is a democracy. To answer this I quote someone who >has lived under British Rule throughout his life. In his book (published by >Mercier Press) "An End to Silence", Reverend Desmond Wilson states: >... British history is not one of my specialties, but the Reverend's complaints about British democracy sound trite. In particular: The Queen: On paper, the Queen still has power. On paper! But custom is everything in British government, especially in constitutional law. And the custom is that monarch is powerless. To me it seems nice that the British people are pleased to keep around a token reminder of their long history; but the monarchy nowadays is nothing more than that: a nicety. (I can see that to the Irish the Queen might be an emotional reminder of *their* history too. But Mr. Wilson claimed to be arguing legalities, not emotions.) The Lords: The same argument about custom and power versus paper applies. But the Lords don't even have the power on paper anymore! I seem to recall that it was the Irish Question itself around the turn of the century that caused their last hurrah, before Commons cut them off. (I can see why the Lords too might still cause emotional memories.) Church of England: Where has anyone ever said that a democracy MUST not touch a religion?? Speaking as an American, it does seem like a good idea, but it's not a requirement! The British are not prima facie guilty of being undemocratic merely because of the *existence* of Anglican church. I'd be willing to listen to better reasoning and examples on the subject. (This century, if you please.) and, "Corruption": Strong emotional words were used. Strong emotional words, standing all by themselves, do not persuade. I understand the militant Northern Irish have to persuade us that the British government is, right now, illegitimate. (If the militants couldn't succeed at that, they would rank as merely another minority that would use violence to force its views upon everyone else.) But complaining about the House of Lords is awfully feeble! Justifications to the side, the British government sitting in London to the side, please perform a "thought experiment" with me: If Northern Ireland were sovereign unto itself, and the people who live in that geographical region had a chance to freely choose their form of government, and to choose whether to associate themselves with G.B., with Ireland, or with no one, tell me honestly: is there any possible outcome in which they would not still hate each other, and throw bombs? If not, perhaps the northern end of the island deserves to sink into the sea... soon as I rescue a friend I have there. Tell me more. My ideas are not set in stone. Yours truly, garry wiegand garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu PS - Would any net.legal people like to enlighten us further on the British constitution? I'm not properly competent. (We need a net.history!)
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (02/12/86)
I usually don't read postings over 100 lines long. I am glad that I read this one. This has brought a lot of information together in a manner that has given me a lot better understanding of The United Kingdom. Thank you.