Well, Norman Baker’s proposals to scrap the Oath of Allegiance certainly caused a stir on Liberal Democrat Voice, didn’t they? Jennie Rigg and others were certainly most riled by the ‘crawling out of the woodwork’ of ‘little republicans’. She feels that the role of the monarchy in a constitutional monarchy state is ‘largely symbolic’. It is thus perhaps not surprising that she is vexed by the importance attached to the issue of a head of state she sees as largely symbolic. However, thankfully others do not share her view and as the Daily Mail has recently reported, the oath may very well face a legal challenge:

“Republic is planning a legal challenge, saying the current rules discriminate against Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs and members of other religions who object to swearing allegiance to the head of the Church of England.”

So, why does everybody get so worked up about who cuts the ribbons on various hospitals, stations and an assortment of other buildings? Everything starts at the beginning, and we all accept that the monarch is the head of state, so the republican challenge is really not just to the monarchy itself but to the entire form of the constitutional monarchy state. During the discussion I frequently raised the question of the powers held under Royal Prerogative. Some of these powers are formally held by the monarch but are exercised by the executive in its name. So, when Parliament was marginalised by Tony Blair in his rush to war in Iraq it was a result of the existence of Royal Prerogative because the declaration of war is a power held to the monarch which of course can then be wielded by the executive.

Powers that are still held by the monarch under Royal Prerogative include

The appointment and dismissal of ministers

The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections

declaration of war;

The declaration of an emergency;

The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;

The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England

So, we can already see why fixed-term Parliaments will never happen under the current form of state. It is a small wonder that the current government hasn’t thought to declare itself in an emergency but more seriously we can easily see the means by which the will of the people could be circumvented. Constitutions are supposed to protect the people against the state but Britain’s current arrangement enshrines the rights of an unelected head of state to live at the taxpayers’ expense, exercise power she has never earned, and of an over mighty executive to trample all over Parliamentary democracy. Also, we can also see the means through which Royal Prerogative undermines civil liberties. Hardly ideal from a liberal and democratic point of view is it?

All of this is to leave aside the question of the House of Lords which builds guaranteed representation for one faith, hereditary peers and political apparatchiks into the legislative process. Needless to say this is the spawn of the constitutional monarchy state too. All of this is a far cry from the 6 O’ Clock News fantasy of a monarch who cuts ribbons and poses in funny hats for touristy photos. Instead what we see is a monarch who sits at the core of what David Cameron might very well call Britain’s broken democracy. Republicanism is not just about removing the monarch it is an integral part of the campaign for a liberal and democratic Britain. Jennie and others may well belittle its significance but in doing so they are dramatically missing the point.

So, what are the alternatives? Well I am against an elected President because with a properly empowered and reformed legislature there is no need for one. Besides I think the best government has the minimal separation between executive and legislative functions. If there must be a ceremonial head of state, something that I am personally unsure there needs to be, then it should arise from the legislature so that leaves either the Prime Minister or a figure elected by the legislative body. Campaigning for a British republic is part of campaigning for consistent democracy. It is totally inconsistent to bemoan the electoral system, the subordination of parliament, the erosion of civil liberties, the lack of fixed-term parliaments and so forth and not follow that through in calling for the complete overhaul of the entire way of governing Britain.