Greetings all!
This post concludes the second portion of my closer
to September, and focuses on an international issue in lieu of a domestic one,
which was covered yesterday. I’ve been saving this topic for a while, because I
wanted to build up a reader base before I made a move on this. And now, I have enough
people reading that I can feel safe posting this without receiving overwhelming
amounts of hate. I oppose monarchies wholeheartedly, and a good portion of my
readers live in countries which practice such systems; this is why I’ve been
holding off. Now that a good majority of my readers are not monarchical subjects, I can release my tirade.
There are two general forms of monarchy in the
modern world. The first kind is the one most of us are familiar with, and that
is the powerless monarchy. These monarchies are characterized by kings/queens
who possess very few actual powers over their countries and exhibit little role
beyond simply being public figures. Examples of such monarchies are most common
in Europe, for example the United Kingdom or Spain. The other kind of monarchy
is the strong monarchy, monarchies characterized by complete rule by the royal
family with no intermediaries as to who runs the nation. This monarchical type
is more common in Africa and Asia, for example Morocco or Jordan. I oppose both
types, although for different reasons.
It is much easier to make a case in opposition of
the former type of monarchy, and in order to make my case I’ll be using the
United Kingdom as my subject (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html).
For those not entirely familiar with the British governance system, it works as
such. The legislature is made up of the House of Lords and the House of
Commons, a parliament with a higher and lower house respectively. The executive
is held chiefly by the Prime Minister and the ruling monarch, at this moment
David Cameron and Queen Elizabeth II respectively. And lastly, as of 2009 the
Supreme Court of the U.K. works as the judicial. The parliament creates laws,
which are passed and enforced through the executive branch. Here is the only
place where the British monarch appears to take part: all laws must be given
royal assent. However, because any monarch must appear impartial to politics,
most all laws are given assent whether the monarch opposes them at heart or
not. The monarch and cabinet are formally appointed by the monarch to form the
executive branch, however the prime minister often chooses the cabinet members
and the monarch typically respects these choices.
By now, you can see how small the role of the
British monarch truly is. Queen Elizabeth II certainly is not creating laws,
and she is not enforcing them; she is not chief executive, as Cameron is the
one with the power to do that. She does not exhibit overwhelming influence over
the cabinet, at least not anymore; at this point, the cabinet choice has become
far more centered on the prime minister. But then, why abolish the monarch? If
it’s not hurting anyone, there is no reason to remove it, correct? Alas, if
only this were true. The monarchy directly hurts every single one of its
subjects by simple value of its existence: it has been estimated to cost
taxpayers 202 million pounds per year (http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php).
Think about how much wealth that is. Hundreds of millions of dollars, which
could be used to better an economy being bitten in the ass by austerity. That
money could be used to ensure damaging cuts don’t have to be made, which could
keep the unemployed and other vulnerable members of society from being put at
serious risk. Alternatively, that wealth could be used as a stimulus to bolster
a nation which hasn’t been doing all that great for the past couple of years. Oh,
and that wealth isn’t all going to the queen; some of it goes to the rest of
the royal family, who do literally nothing in the governmental processes at all
except wait to usurp the throne. These people are getting paid more per year
than Mitt Romney, and are doing even less. If any person fits the bill of being
a “leech” in American conservative terms, it is the members of any royal family
which exudes little power but takes in huge amounts of money. Since these
people effectively do nothing, nothing should be spent on them. Better yet, end
the monarchy entirely, thereby removing a dead weight.
The second form of monarchy is one I oppose on
different grounds, but equally as strong. These kinds of monarchies allow no
room for democracy in their governments, and I’ll be taking Saudi Arabia as an
example. In the country which uses the Qur’an as its constitution, there is
little semblance of freedom in the government. The king and his family exert
complete control over the legislative and executive processes within the
country, only giving any power to the religious authority of the ulema, a force
for ultra-conservatism in a nation where women already have trouble showing
their faces or driving. Such is the cornerstone of my opposition; I believe
that people should have an influence over their nation, and the easiest way for
this to occur is through the allowance of, at the very least, a republic. Any
nation with that many people deserves to elect those that rule it, especially
when such an opportunity could be a drastic opportunity for improvement of
life. The royal family here also takes in exorbitant amounts of wealth as well,
giving another good reason to expunge the monarchy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/28/wikileaks-saudi-royal-wel_n_829097.html).
Obviously, you can see why my explanation here is shorter; it is much easier to
see why absolute monarchies must be scrapped out of necessity. This form of
governance should have died with Napoleon Bonaparte years ago; the fact it
still exists is sickening.
That is all for September, and I hope I’ve given
good reasoning towards my point of view. I also hope I haven’t offended any
friends living under constitutional monarchies too much, but they’ll likely
understand. If you’d like to comment about this, feel free to do so using
anonymity if you must. Other than that, I can be primarily contacted through my
email zerospintop@live.com. And of
course, my accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, DeviantArt and Steam are
always good places to find me. And so, this is KnoFear, signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment