As more and more royal weddings appear on the news feed, Queen Elizabeth becomes the spotlight of fashion– it is undeniable that the Monarchs are still a relevant topic of the 21st century. Being the oldest form of government, the history of monarchy goes way back; even Aristotle considered monarchy being the best possible state in principle. However, the form of monarchy as the government began to revolve when the Kingdom of England restricted the power of the monarch in 1688 with the Bill of Rights, creating the idea of Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch exercise power limited by either written or unwritten constitutions.
Throughout history, there are at least 50 countries that have been ruled by constitutional monarchies. Although many countries across the globe still have a constitutional monarchy, it still seems incredible that 12 monarchies are thriving in Europe where include some of the most liberal democracies of Europe or even the world. However, even in the most famous monarchy country, the United Kingdom, debate about the role Constitutional monarch play in politics and society remains heated. Are monarchies still necessary? Are monarchies too expensive? Do monarchies hinder the presence of democracy? Despite many questions and challenges, the constitutional monarchy still indeed play a crucial role in European political scene as their active role represents a symbol of unity but at the same time bring economic benefits, political legitimacy, and stability.
Acting as the symbol of unity and stability is the most notable among all the role the monarchies play. Generally, monarchy as a form of government is built on the premise of paternalism where one is needed to care for his or her country and all subjects. Different from the general idea of monarchy, constitutional monarchies itself is hereditary where the role of monarchies is only symbolic and ceremonial through representing the continuity of tradition, unity, and stability. To the people, the monarchies are beyond the normal partisan politics; they are a commonality that’s shared across different groups like “the flag and certain unique traditions, they can be rallied round by all sides in times of trouble” (Bale). Similarly, having a constitutional monarchy remind a country what it represents and where it came from in ever-changing times.
For instance, in a multi-ethnic country like Belgium, constitutional monarchies are especially important because the institution of monarchy itself unites diverse and even hostile ethnic group under the shared loyalty to the country and the King rather than a belief or a specific group. The Belgian monarchy even proudly claims themselves to be “bound by the Constitution above all other ideological and religious considerations, political opinions and debates and economic interests” and swear to “acts as an arbiter and guardian of the country's unity and independence” (The Belgian Monarchy). Moreover, the constitutional monarchies often represent the result of “high-performing democratic political culture characterized by legal continuity, compromise, self-limitation, suspicion of radicalism, and regular, moderate adjustments and policy corrections” (Freedom House). Thus making constitutional monarchies a symbol of stability because the monarchies can only work when the people of a country accepts the presence of a monarch.
Besides from playing the important symbol to their countries, constitutional monarchies in facts bring unforeseen economic benefits to their countries. For the most notable model, the royal family of the United Kingdom has a net worth of £67.5 billion and is estimated to have contributed £1,766 million to the UK economy in 2017 (Brand Finance). Among its contribution, tourism is seemed to be the major model for money generating. In the fiscal year of 2017/2018, more than 2.7 million tourists paid toward the admission tickets to the Royal Estates which alone have generated £40.8 million while Tourism as a whole is estimated to contribute over £550 million toward the British Economy (The Statistic Portal). As it is known that the Royal Family owns a significant amount of properties across the UK and all have generated a large number of profits to themselves, the Crown Estates in fact also has returned £328.4 million back toward the economy and contributed 15% of its profits toward the Sovereign Grant (Brand Finance; HM Treasury).
In addition to the enormous amount of monetary contribution toward the economy as can be seen in the case of the UK Royal Family, constitutional monarch also largely impact a country’s economy. In the study The Logic of Hereditary Rule, it is proven that there is a correlation “between economic growth rate and having a hereditary leader in office” where countries that went from a non-hereditary leader to a hereditary leader see economic growth of 1.03% per year (Tim Besley). A report from the World Bank reveals that countries with constitutional monarchies are richer and wealthier with an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 compared to non-constitutional monarchy countries average GDP per capita of $12,518.76.
While the Constitutional monarchies are not meant to be political in theory, the monarchies remain crucial and active on the political scene by providing political legitimacy and stability in the country. Although it might sound absurd to associate political legitimacy with monarchies, the key of monarchies to political legitimacy is indeed the illegitimacy of constitutional monarchies. Because they are illegitimate, monarchies wouldn’t have access to power at all. In contrast to a presidential system, the monarchies experience more constraints on the exercise of power which also contribute to the political legitimacy of the country.
Moreover, while the power is limited, monarchies still can use their influence for his or her country’s political stability. According to a study done by Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones, Presidential countries, either direct or indirect elected are more likely allow governments to change without new election or democratic inputs; in contrast, countries with constitutional monarchs are more likely to consult their people through general early election. In other words, only constitutional monarch would force prime ministers to consult their people before changing the government. In the United Kingdom for example, while being politically neutral, the Queen is still able to hold a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister where she “has a right and duty to express her views on government matters” (The Royal Household). Specifically, in 2003, the Queen was able to stop a war from occurring when Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, considered entering war with Saddam Hussein. This action not only promoted the security of the entire state but also protected UK’s external sovereignty given UK’s involvement in the Suez Crisis.
Despite the evident benefit from constitutional monarchies’ active role in European politics, many questions are raised upon the need constitutional monarchies in the 21st-century politics. When King Juan Carlos of Spain crowned his son Prince Felipe, the current King Felipe VI, in 2014, the essential question of “If the 21st century still needs a king” revived as the Spaniards took on the street demanding “a referendum on whether to maintain the institution”(Minder). Meanwhile, the argument of democracy remains the most prominent challenge that the constitutional monarch can’t resolve given the nature of monarchies lacks democratic legitimacy and there is no way to compensate it.
In conclusion, European constitutional monarchies are still active and crucial to their countries as some evidence reflect. Although it is foreseeable that constitutional monarchies may remain a symbol of unity given the history behind and continue to contribute economic benefits to the countries especially in UK’s case as the royal family is considered to be rather intentional branding for UK, the future role of European constitutional monarchies is uncertain due to the unsolvable question against their democratic legitimacy.