Essay: Whether or not Great Britain should be a republic

This dissertation will discuss the arguments on whether or not Great Britain should be a republic. It argues that Great Britain should be a republic and that monarchy is unnecessary and unneeded. This dissertation aims to use other republics as examples, the British Commonwealth’s downfall, and the disadvantages and advantages of a republic to support this argument. It will also discuss the public opinion in my local area via interviews; public opinion is particularly important because the UK is a democratic country. It is particularly significant to discuss this as we can then determine what could be the best changes to make to the government to help us in the future. This dissertation also intends to evaluate the problems in the current British government system. Chapter 1  will analyse the British government now, Chapter 2 will review the Commonwealth’s failure, Chapter 3 examines the US republic and Republic of the Philippines and Chapter 4 discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a republic, and review the results and evaluate arguments. Lastly, Chapter 5 contains the conclusion.
British Government Now
Britain’s current government status is constitutional monarchy which means the monarchy’s power within the country is limited by the parliament. This style of government was adopted by Great Britain after the Commonwealth proved to be an unsuitable style of governing Britain. In British government, there are 3 parts: the monarchy, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The monarch’s role in British government is said to be mostly “symbolic” however, there are some  contributions the monarch makes. These contributions being Head of State and having laws passed through his or hers name. Though the monarch is the Head of State, they hold no active position in parliament. On the other hand, parliament has four main jobs; they pass laws, authorize taxes and budgets in the government, examine government administration and debate and discuss current issues. The House of Commons is Parliament’s lower house, it consists of around 650 MPs (members of parliament) who are elected via popular vote of citizens over the age of 18. The House of Commons manages the government’s finances, approving all the spending for al government departments. The House of Commons mostly spends its time creating laws. Bills are brought forward by individual MPs and are voted on. If the bill passes it is passed to the House of Lords to be approved. The House of Commons also examines government administration via their Select Committees or Committees of Inquiry and check if jobs are being done correctly an efficiently. The Prime Minister is also counted as a member of the House of Commons. The House of Lords consists of over 700 “lords” who have inherited their position or members of the nobility; some bishops are lords too such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and York. The duties of the House of Lords are investigating and scrutinising government administration, investigating matters of public interest and reviewing or proposing laws. The House of Lords can propose and pass their own bills but still have to seek for the approval from the House of Commons.
The Commonwealth’s Downfall
The Commonwealth period began in 1649 where it was declared Britain were to be a “Commonwealth and free state”. This act had been passed after the execution of Charles I; it had been debated and thought through that England was to be rid of the monarchy. Moreover, the House of Lords was voted unnecessary therefore its dissolution took place. The parliament now consisted of a Council of State and the Rump Parliament whereby political power resided. However, the Army also held some appearance in political affairs. The Army would later have much more significance to the Rump Parliament which helped secure its authority in the government.
The start of the Commonwealth’s downfall could be marked in 1650 where, on the 2nd January of that year, every adult male was required to take the Engagement. In the Engagement, they were required to declare their faithfulness to the Commonwealth. Many refused to co-operate and were unwilling to this Engagement. The Rump was viewed as unofficial and it relied on the Army for its survival.  The Army provided the Rump with many successes which Cromwell would have gained respect from the public. After failing to create a “Parliament of Saints” also known as the Barebones, The Army appointed Cromwell as Lord Protector. Interestingly, his role as Lord Protector was very much similar to that of a King. Cromwell governed England through his Major-Generals, and it seemed as though England became a predominantly army controlled country. Despite their successes, their presence left some issues with the civilians. Consequently, the New Model Army began to think the Commonwealth was not “radical” enough wherefore they had a loss of Army support.
Additionally, the Rump Parliament failed to show any sort of reformation whether it was reformation politically, legally, religiously or socially.  Many thought, including Cromwell himself, that Parliament was no longer a parliament for God’s people. Furthermore, Cromwell was the Lord Protector and the leader of the army; possessing a lot of power in the republican government. This ultimately led to the Rump Parliament’s dissolution; Cromwell had a respectable public stature and could change and could change public opinion. On the contrary, many MPs were also accused of allegedly working for self-gain. Overall, the Commonwealth failed due to its inability to provide an effective reformation in government. Its failure to display a sustainable foundation, in the beginning, became a domino effect and led to its dissolution.
This part of the history of the British government is particularly significant as we see what the country did with their new status and how the government performed as a republic. It may act as a reason for Britain to avoid becoming a republic but nevertheless, it provides more knowledge on the role of the monarchy and how they benefit Britain. Since the new Republican government initiated uproar among the British people, there are chances it may happen again if Britain were to become a Republic now. We are able to create a prediction, based on the Commonwealth’s downfall then, on how Britain would perform nowadays as a republic. However, would that prediction be necessarily valid? It has been over 300 years since the Commonwealth’s downfall and Britain has changed dramatically.
The US Republic
There are many arguments on whether or not the USA is a democracy or a republic. However, the USA is, in fact, a Constitutional Federal Republic which means people do not vote on laws directly, therefore, the USA is not a “direct democracy” (DeMichele, 2018).  The beginning of the American Republic began in the American Revolution where the colonists in the US declared independence from the British.  After being colonised by the British for over 100 years, they were pressed with new taxes in 1765 following on from the British’s victory over the French.  The Americans in the colonies created a Second Continental Congress (a group of representatives from the 13 colonies along the Atlantic coast). They believed they earned a right to the consent of the new taxes. The British continued making intolerable acts which sparked an army fuelled conflict,  known as the Revolutionary War. General George Washington led the war and succeeded, leading the Americans to victory. The 13 colonies were now united and called themselves the United States of America.  They had created an official compact that officially joined them together called the Articles of Confederation. Despite having created a compact, the nation’s Confederation had become weak in the long run. They had declined politically and economically. This resulted in the need for an establishment of the new government; Thomas Paine contributed greatly to this. He stated the two flaws of the British government was “monarchy and hereditary rule” (Bartleby.com, 2018). He argues the freedom of the Americans depended on the “republican” aspect of its government. Therefore, in 1787 the legislative leaders of the USA decided the country should be self-governed. The leaders created a new charter, disregarding the Articles of Confederation, called the Constitution which was finished on September 17, 1787, and adopted on March 4, 1789. The new centralised government’s purpose was for self-government that would listen to the wishes of the public.
In the American political system, there are three levels: local, state and, federal. At the local level, there are counties which their purpose is to administer state laws within a specific location. They also manage public services such as parks, hospitals, fire services etc. There are townships that have an elected board including supervisors who are local supervisors for the local services like rubbish collection. These are usually subdivisions of a county. Similarly, there are municipalities that have elected mayors that serve as the executive. There are also elected councillors that are the legislators. Finally, there are special districts, which are divisions of the government that especially cover things like education or transportation.
As there are 50 states, in the USA this means there are 50 state governments. State governments consist of the three branches: executive, legislature, and judiciary. The executive branch includes a number of officials, the top executive official being the governor, who share executive power.  All governors are elected by popular vote and the other positions are either elected or appointed (depending on the state). The second branch (the legislature branch) is where each state has its own legislature whereby those elected can propose bills to become law, raise taxes etc. Lastly, there is the judiciary branch; the judiciary system handles the constitutional issues within the state. The courts in the system mostly handle cases of personal injury, criminal cases, family law and, contract and probate.
The final level of government is the federal or national government, which the state governments are modelled after, consist of the same branches as the state governments. The federal level of government has a higher placement in overall national government. The legislative branch is made up of the Congress which is a bicameral legislature. Therefore, the Congress has two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state votes for its representatives every two years and is allowed a specific number depending on state population (each state having at least one representative). The Senate is formed by senators who each represent one state; each state has 2 senators serving terms of six years. Both chambers are responsible for law making as a bill or treaty requires the consent of the Senate and House. The Congress is also granted the power to create federal courts, declare war, establish patents, raise and support armies, and more. The executive branch is in the hands of the President who heads the Vice-president, cabinet, and agencies. The President is responsible for either deciding to sign or veto (deny) laws, to execute and administer laws, and appointing heads of departments in the cabinet. Finally, there is the judiciary branch of national government which consists of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Their office applies and interprets laws to the more severe cases they come across. They can also establish whether or not a law is unconstitutional. In the process of an election, there are usually two main parties: the democratic and republican parties. In each party, they work together to win political office through the election. However, there is also an unlikely place for a third party. There are four major third parties: ideological, economic, protest, single-issue, and splinter parties.
In this political system, there are also advantages and disadvantages within it. The USA government system provides democracy; freedom of speech is given to all people disregarding their race, ethnicity, sexuality, and so forth. Furthermore, the separation of powers prevents the government from becoming too powerful, this has also helped the USA to establish a stable government. Religious doctrine and laws have been kept apart from the government which allows there to be more pluralism in society. Rights of minorities are protected from the absolutism of the majority by the Constitution. Despite a significant amount of advantages, there are some limitations such as important issues sometimes being overlooked, due to the separation of powers. There could be a careless use of power which could be used for more important and necessary matters. So far, the USA federal republic has produced a stabilised government since it had dismissed the elements of the British government, however, there are still issues within their government
The Republic of the Philippines
After being colonised by the Spaniards and the Americans, the Filipinos finally gained independence in 12, June 1898. Although the Philippines was established as a republic after its independence, the Philippines underwent a succession of 4 republics before residing in its current Republican State status. Although this is the case, it is important to recognise that they were able to show their capability of running a government themselves through a Republican system.
The rise of the First Philippine Republic was introduced when General Emilio Famy Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines from his exile in Hong Kong. He found that the truce signed by the Filipino revolutionists and the  Spaniards was broken in vast areas of the country. Through the advice of Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Aguinaldo declared a dictatorship government. However, four days later the Filipino rebels defeated the Spaniards in Alapan, Cavite which Aguinaldo celebrated by proclaiming the Philippines’ independence by officially waving the Philippine flag for the first time on 12 June, 1898. Apolinario Mabini contributed to the development of the Republican government as his plan to form a grassroot government was recognised by Aguinaldo in late June 1898. This led Aguinaldo to issue decrees that reorganised the government in emancipated provinces. In the decree of June 18, 1898, Aguinaldo reorganised  the municipalities through the election of Popular Assemblies. The heads of these assemblies were then elected as the provincial council by the town chiefs. Aguinaldo proceeded to the restructure the judiciary through a decree on June 20. Following this, the government was officially changed into Revolutionary from a Dictatorial including the change of the executive name from dictator to president. Later on, four major departments were established and the assignment of delegates to the Revolutionary Congress was carried out. The Revolutionary Congress was then made official in September 15, 1898, and soon their representatives elected their officers. Those officers being the President, vice president, first secretary, and so forth. In January 23, 1899 the Republic was finally inaugurated.
The Philippines’ government system is much like the USA’s however the main difference between them is the US is a federal republic whilst the Philippines is a unitary republic. As well as this, the amount of time the Philippine constitution allows the President to serve one six-year term whilst the US limits the president to two terms which is a total of 8 years. Like the US, the power is divided equally between three branches: executive, judicial and legislative. The executive branch containing the President, Vice President and the Cabinet. The President and Vice President are separately elected through “direct popular vote”  (Gov.ph, 2018). The President is given the authority to appoint his members of his Cabinet. The departments within the Cabinet serve as a large part of the country’s bureaucracy. The Legislative branch is responsible for making laws, altering them and revoking them. It is divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives. Lastly, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and other lower courts. It has the authority to “declare a treaty, agreements internationally or executively, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional” (Gov.ph, 2018).
The advantages and disadvantages of the Philippine government system are similar to the USA’s as they do possess very similar governmental systems. Such as more democracy for the people, however, Philippines specifically has an issue with corruption in the government. With shorter terms of presidency, there is an advantage as then the President can focus on more important issues than focusing on a re-election for a second term similar to what occurs in America.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Republic
In a republic, extreme power dwells with the general population. In any case, the general population, every now and then, give up that energy to a gathering of individuals they call pioneers, to practice on their benefit for a particular number of years. Toward the finish of that period, the general population choose whether such a gathering of individuals ought to be given the power again or another gathering of pioneers should assume control. The Head of State in a republic isn’t forced upon the general population. The electorates don’t wake up one day and understand that another individual is their pioneer without their say as much. The general population are in charge of putting a pioneer there or affecting a difference in authority independent from anyone else in a general decision. Delegates are specifically chosen to speak to the constituents in Parliament. These agents make laws to administer the land. There are additionally chosen authorities who shape the official arm of the administration. Such authorities uphold the laws that are passed by the Parliamentarians. So there is peace. However, there are also disadvantages to a republican system. In a republican framework, every one of the general population can’t specifically control the nation as in the beginning of a vote based system. A few people should of need be chosen to run for the benefit of the others. Races are then means by which can be costly ventures that require a considerable measure of assets. This is particularly so in poorer nations of the world where republicanism works. In a republic, there are numerous political gatherings battling for the control of the higher echelons of political power. This can lead to genuine disputes where they shake each other to increase political favourable position. Inclination to be deceitful of instruction is by and large low, the government officials may mislead the mass of the general population with make their words more appealing just to win control. The general population are not ready to break down the genuine circumstance on the ground and arrive at their very own decisions.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Monarchy
The monarchy was once the ultimate source of power in Britain, now it is sometimes deemed as a part of government with little contributions. Despite this, the monarchy does have some positive impacts such as adding to Great Britain’s  economy. The presence of monarchy in government provides people with leadership stability and a symbolic representation of national identity. Additionally, the monarchy lessens chances of corruption within government. Despite its positive impacts, the monarchy lacks the accountability of democracy. By lacking democracy, people will live unhappily and will not be loyal to the country’s government. Furthermore, the living costs of the monarchy is extremely expensive, so that even though they bring money into Britain they spend a lot of it themselves.
Research
In my local area I had completed interviews which, interestingly, became very opinionated. In total, there were 34 participants, who shared their thoughts on the question ” Would you agree that Britain should become a republic and that monarchy is an unnecessary element in society?”. Before beginning these interviews, each participant was asked their age in order for them to be categorised in these 4 groups: under 18s, 18-35, 35-55 and 55+. By categorising them into age groups we are able to see more into their reasoning, whether it be the effects media publications or patriotism. In order to refer to participants’ answers, participants have been numbered. In my findings, 41% of the participants would say that they disagreed. Participant 3, aged 55+, explained that the monarchy was not only beneficial for our economy as they do bring tourism. They spoke on the patriotic values of the monarchy; it can be seen that the monarchy is a large part of British culture and history and, it sets as an example of Britain’s “cultural life” (Kcl.ac.uk, 2018). One could also say that the monarchy is a symbol of the country’s sovereignty. Yet participant 7’s argument stated that “the monarchy doesn’t do anything particularly influential for our country”, speaking from the age group 18-35. Indeed the power in the monarchy is inherited which shows privilege within the government. If a monarch would not have proper education on government and politics, they may appoint unsuitable people to be in the House of Lords. The House of Lords holds a major part in government being the upper house in parliament, which increases the significance of the Queen’s decisions. Interestingly, participant 12 said ” the type of government should not matter as long as it is stable, fair, and democratic.”. This statement delivers quite a good point as the UK and republics such as the Philippines and America have established stable and effective government.
Furthermore, participant 18 and 21, both in the under 18s, said they would not want Britain to be governed as a republic, when participant 18 was asked why they explained they had seen how Donald Trump was handling America through the media as a republic and saw the many disagreements that happened. Participant 21 argued the Queen doesn’t have any say in parliament decisions therefore there should be no harm in having a monarchy. Participants 18 and 21 both have social media ,which they have said, is where they see the news reports on current government statuses. It is a significant matter to address that news is commonly faked and or exaggerated on social media and that the younger generations’ minds are constantly given information about celebrities, government and so forth that they all mostly believe. Ultimately, they will decide the future of not only the U.K’s government but others too. Although, if Britain were to get rid of the monarchy, it would create an uproar amongst society as they hold such patriotic value. Dr. Anna Whitelock predicts that the Queen’s successors will not be favoured by the public. The monarchy contributes to Britain’s national character which is very important to most citizens, it would be deemed as an unethical act to be rid of a part of one’s culture. Also, by changing the government into a republican government, there would be more freedom for the people of Britain. In order for a government to operate smoothly, there should be democracy because this will keep the citizens content to know they have a say in what is best for themselves.
Overall, Great Britain should become a republic as republican governments have proven to be successful in other countries, providing more democracy for the people. There will be more freedom and choice as to whom may govern the country and how it is governed. Although the previous attempt at a Republican Britain did not succeed, there are new ways and changes that have been made that will help a republic now to succeed. In order for a good, stable government,  government positions should not be inherited but voted for. By electing officials, the government will have more experienced and educated officials rather than inherited powers who may not know how to make the most suitable decisions for the citizens.