All democratic states have an office for the head of state, and one for the head of government. These positions are typically separated in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, and have the same holder in presidential systems. Most states follow one of the first two aforementioned systems; a notable exception would be the United States of America, where the president holds both offices as has Donald Trump for the past four years. Need I say more. But as is argued below we have a system in the UK where the Prime Minister effectively is both the leader of the government and Head of State. A very dangerous consolidation of power. For the past ten years we have seen just how this power can be corrupted by rogue politicians.
Why are there calls for change in the UK?
The root of the issue lies with the process, or rather lack of process, in appointing the nation’s head of state. The presiding monarch inherits the office as soon as they take to the throne. This leads to the whole purpose for a nation having a head of state being defeated; as the monarch will always be unelected (a seemingly-obvious fact, albeit a key one), this means that they are forced into a ceremonial position politically; they lose their critical role of serving as an impartial voice independent of government.
The request from the Prime Minister to the Queen late last year, to prorogue Parliament, created numerous philosophical, constitutional, and political arguments in the UK. One concerns the role and powers of the monarch, who many feel has been unfairly treated by the Prime Minister.
The Queen, as head of state, has the power to dissolve Parliament, call an election, and fire the Prime Minister. But, as the monarch, she is also supposed to remain neutral, and that means that she almost always follows the advice of her politically-motivated PM and Cabinet, so as to not upset the government and the public.
Her role as head of state is conflicting with her duty and will to remain neutral, not just in strict procedural terms but in the eyes of the public and politicians. The monarchy fears public revolution against it, due to the fragility of any power which is above the law in a modern, democratic society.
The Queen has a duty to call elections and dissolve Parliament, but because of her necessary neutrality, and, further, necessary appearance of neutrality, she must rely solely on ministerial advice. That impairs her ability to perform the roles of head of state effectively: she is passive in her role, not active. Essentially, the PM, as the active player, becomes the head of state.
This negates the argument that people often make along the lines of ‘You could end up with so-and-so as head of state’. Effectively the UK always ends up with a politically neutered head of state and the PM of the day in the role.
A neutral head of state selected by Parliament would have the mandate to be active in procedural policy, setting the dates of general elections and Parliamentary dissolutions without the need for the Prime Minister to even be involved in these decisions.
This would mean that, instead of the head of state, who (in Britain) is the final constitutional check on executive power, accepting the executive’s demands almost without thought, the head of state would properly exercise its ability to check the power of the PM and stop the development of a tinpot dictatorship — which may lie ahead for the UK.
The monarchy could, though, remain as a ceremonial institution, and still perform many of the duties (in turn, receiving the benefits of public money) that it does today. The monarch could have equal ceremonial footing with the head of state, both attending events and foreign ceremonies.
The monarchy’s importance, even today, derives from its ability to unite the people of Britain. That ability, though, is threatened when the monarch is dragged into the political arena, and has to stick to their vital appearance of neutrality to the public. Add to this the breed pf politicians now in the Conservative power that is unwilling to abide by the rules of our unwritten constitution and time for change becomes even more urgent.
It’s time we had a President as the official head of state in the UK, a written constitution that he/she would adhere to and hold the government to, plus a fairer vote system where every vote counts. After all this is the 21st century.
