Constitutional monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A constitutional monarchy or limited monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political power. (The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy even though it does not have an actual written constitution.) The process of government and law within a constitutional monarchy is usually very different from that in an absolute monarchy.

Most constitutional monarchies take on a parliamentary form, like the United Kingdom, Canada or Japan, where the monarch may be regarded as the head of state but the prime minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, is head of government.

Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies (called constitutional democratic monarchies^{[citation needed]}), this has not always historically been the case. There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy, Japan and Spain, or with military dictatorships, as was recently the case in Thailand.

[edit] Differences between constitutional and absolute monarchies

[edit] Absolute monarchy

In theoretical absolutism, a monarch rules with total power. Towards the end of the Middle Ages and following the Protestant Reformation, religious wars, the decline of the Roman Catholic Church, and a growing middle class resulted in the emergence of absolute leaders to provide guarantees of order. The concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" often, as in the case of King James I of England, covered as a justification for abuses of absolute power.

In a situation where one individual who is not necessarily knowledgeable about economics makes all economic decisions, the economy can be seriously damaged by imprudent allocation of funds. For example, Louis XIV of France — whose reign is widely considered to be the exemplar of absolute monarchy — abused his control of money by spending it on his Palace of Versailles and on wars that did not benefit France. According to Early Modern France, (Robin Briggs, 1998), at the end of Louis XIV's reign, the French Royal Family was in debt 2 billion livres or about US$21 billion. This debt, combined with the awkward tax structure of the country, was a contributing factor in the French Revolution. However, other historians argue that the tax-exempt status of the nobility and the Church was a more important cause of France's budget deficit.

If the absolute monarch favors one group over another, a reduction of personal freedoms may result. King Louis XIV demonstrated this when he overrode the Edict of Nantes and forcibly exiled the Huguenots from France.

[edit] Constitutional monarchy

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen reigns with limits to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament), giving rise to the modern adage "the Queen reigns but does not rule". In constitutional monarchies the position of monarch may be hereditary (e.g. The Netherlands), with a royal family. Or, more democratically, elected (e.g. in Malaysia, where the Paramount Ruler or Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected to a five-year term). In philosophy and political science, two broad justifications are given for monarchy: the British doctrine that monarchs are part of a social contract, founded on the autonomy of the individual, and the Continental doctrine that the monarch is an embodiment of the will and character of a people. Today we may view these as individualist and communitarian doctrines, respectively, which follow the broad lines of disagreement between the English-speaking nations and those of Asia and Europe. As in the older feudal regimes, monarchs may be given the title of emperor, king, prince, duke or other traditional titles of territorial rulers. In the British empire, local monarchs — viceroys, governors general — have sometimes been appointed. In royal families, children and collateral relatives may have subordinate titles associated with conquered provinces, as when the heir to the British throne is called the "Prince of Wales." Constitutional monarchs, even when they have little power in government, generally play active roles in civil society, especially in not-for-profit enterprises, and play a symbolic role by representing the nation. Constitutional monarchs may also be the symbolic leaders of a nation's armed forces, and play a role in maintaining constitutional government in times of crises or change of administration. Furthermore, they discuss issues with the head of government frequently, and have large informal power.

[edit] Constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom

Main article: Monarchy of the United Kingdom

The British monarchy is considered the oldest of modern constitutional monarchies, and the model for this form of government in the English-speaking world. A constitutional monarchy was able to form in the United Kingdom across different periods of history for a complex combination of reasons: sometimes due to a lack of strong leadership, and at other times due to strong leaders short of funding, who needed to raise money to prosecute wars, and needed to address public grievances to ensure this money was forthcoming.

Historically, the English were divided on the question of the origins and justification for monarchy, but the Continental and Scottish belief in the "Divine Right of Kings" gradually gave ground to modern social-contract philosophy. Magna Carta in 1215 is considered the first codification of the monarchy as a contract among territorial chiefs.

In the 17th century, the Stuart dynasty's attempts to import the doctrine of "Divine Right" from Scotland, caused the English to question the royal authority and revive earlier safeguards against executive power. Parliament took several key steps to limit the power of the King. They revived the English instrument of impeachment, which held the King's ministers to be responsible for his actions; hence the King's servants could be executed for implementing unpopular policies. They forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Right that re-affirmed that the King must go through Parliament to enact new laws, taxes, etc. After signing the Petition of Right, Charles I responded by avoiding the recall of a parliament for the next decade and instead relied on other measures to raise funds such as the unpopular Ship money, one of many actions by the king that ultimately led to the English Civil Wars, and the eventual beheading of the King for treason. This sent a message to future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power. During the reign of Charles II, Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which said that any prisoner taken by the King would be given a trial. This prevented the King from simply sending his opponents to jail.

When James II took the throne many people did not appreciate it when he flaunted his Catholicism. Therefore Parliament flexed its muscles once again by asking William of Orange to overthrow the king. William came from the Netherlands and overthrew James II with little bloodshed. This nearly peaceful transfer of power, between James II and the future dual monarchy of William III and Mary II, is known as the Glorious Revolution. Once William and Mary had gained control of the throne, they completely supported the constitutional monarchy. Together they signed the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which severely limited the power of the king, and gave more freedom to their subjects. One supporter of constitutional monarchy was John Locke. He wrote in his “Treatises on Government” that a direct democracy is the best form of government. He wrote that people are able to improve and rule themselves, and that people have three main rights. These rights are life, liberty, and property, and it is the government’s job to protect these rights. He also wrote that if the government is unjust the people have the right to overthrow it, a doctrine that was invoked during the American Revolution. The conflict between absolute (Tory) and social contract (Whig) views of the monarchy came to a head in a war of succession. The deposed English and Scottish king, James II and VII, was defeated by Whig forces led by William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, now considered a decisive turning point in British and Irish history.

[edit] Constitutional monarchy in the European tradition

An independent development of constitutional monarchy occurred on the continent of Europe in the years following the French revolution. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered the first monarch to proclaim himself the embodiment of a nation, rather than a divinely appointed ruler, and this view of monarchy became the basis of continental constitutional monarchies. G.W.F. Hegel, in his Philosophy of Right (1820) gave it a philosophical justification that accorded well with evolving political theory and with Protestant Christian views of natural law. Hegel's forecast of a constitutional monarch with very limited powers, whose function is to embody the national character and to provide constitutional continuity in times of emergency, has been borne out by the development of constitutional monarchies in Europe and Japan. The largely ceremonial office of president, in some modern parliamentary democracies in Europe, Israel and other nations, can be viewed as a form of elected or appointed version of Hegel's constitutional monarch, and his forecast of the form of government suitable to the modern world may be seen as prophetic. The Russian and French Presidents, with their stronger powers, may also be seen as justified in Hegelian terms as wielding the powers suitable to the embodiment of the national will.

[edit] Modern constitutional monarchy

As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament. Some of the framers of the US Constitution may have conceived of the president as a being an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was understood in their time, following Montesquieu's somewhat dated account of the separation of powers in the United Kingdom; although the term "president" at that time implied someone with the powers of the chairman of a committee of equals, like the rotating "president" of the congress under the Articles of Confederation.

An evolution in political thinking would, however, eventually spawn such phenomena as universal suffrage and political parties. By the mid 20th century, the political culture in Europe had shifted to the point where most constitutional monarchs had been reduced to the status of figureheads, with no effective power at all. Instead, it was the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister who had become those who exercised power. In many cases even the monarchs themselves, while still at the very top of the political and social hierarchy, were given the status of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian view.

In present terms, the difference between a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy, and one that is a republic, is considered more a difference of detail than of substance, particularly in the common case in which the head of state serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation. This is reflected, for example, in all but the most die-hard Spanish Republicans accepting their country's returning to constitutional monarchy after the death of Francisco Franco.

[edit] Constitutional monarchies today

Constitutional monarchies with representative parliamentary systems are shown in red. Other constitutional monarchies (shown in violet) have monarchs who continue to exercise political influence, albeit within certain legal restrictions. Constitutional monarchies in beige (currently only one nation, Thailand) are constitutional monarchies in which the constitution has been suspended.

Today constitutional monarchies are mostly associated with Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Sweden. In such cases it is the prime minister who holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the King or Queen retains only minor to no powers. Different nations grant different powers to their monarchs. In the Netherlands, Denmark and in Belgium, for example, the Monarch formally appoints a representative to preside over the creation of a coalition government following a parliamentary election, while in Norway the King chairs special meetings of the cabinet.

The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen realms, all independent parliamentary democracies in a personal union relationship under Elizabeth II. Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth Realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government.

In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centers around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favor of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.

There also exists today several federal constitutional monarchies. In these countries, each subdivision has a distinct government and head of government, but all subdivisions share a monarch who is head of state of the federation as a united whole.

[edit] Present-day constitutional monarchical status

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

Though many of Europe's past and present leftist parties contain anti-monarchy factions, to date few have openly declared a preference for flat-out monarchical abolition, and instead use their powers to curtail and reform alleged un-democratic or prejudiced elements of the monarchy. For example, in recent years the age-old tradition of "males first" order of succession to the throne has been abolished in some European constitutional monarchies, allowing for eldest daughters to assume the throne before their brothers.

One view as to why modern constitutional monarchies continue to survive is that the individual royal families themselves have remained popular. Today, most contemporary monarchs work to be the embodiment of the state, and the focus of national unity. For example, in many constitutional monarchies the monarch's birthday is a national holiday, and an event marked with public patriotic events and parties; these events can also foster tourism. The sovereign, along with the larger royal families, project a modern image to the citizenry of a monarchy that is both caring and interested in the people and their country. Many members of modern royal families attempt to provide example, frequently making donations or participating in charity events, visiting poor or sick citizens, and making public appearances at high profile sporting or arts events. As long as a monarchy can remain popular in the public eye, there is little reason for the politicians to meddle, and those who do can easily find themselves at the receiving end of harsh public criticism.

In recent years many royal families have also become popular targets of tabloid journalism and gossip, which although often argued as being intrusive and destructive, continues to prove that many find royals interesting simply as celebrities. A further argument speculates that abolishing a popular monarchy may be a pointless endeavor anyway, as even a "deposed" royal family could presumably still live their royal lifestyle and capture public attention, making any republican replacement seem illegitimate. Historically, when monarchies have been abolished the royal family was usually exiled to a foreign country to prevent their presence from interfering or distracting from the new republican government. However, such moves were usually done during periods of conflict and turmoil with the monarchy.

If a democratic country were to abolish its monarchy today, an exile for the royal family would likely be denounced as cruel, and would thus not be seen as a practical option. Moreover, some previously exiled royal families (such as the Habsburgs in Austria) won legal cases by arguing that exiling a person from his or her homeland solely based on family origin is a severe violation of human rights. In Bulgaria, the fall of Communism enabled the former Monarch not only to return from prolonged exile but also to engage in active politics (without seeking to regain his throne).

In the 20th century, a much more politically sophisticated view in favour of preserving constitutional monarchies has often been argued as well. As mentioned above, many constitutional monarchs continue to hold some political powers, even though these may be never used in practice, or only exercised symbolically. However, some have argued that as long as monarchs retain these powers formally, the "threat" of political intervention is still strong enough to dissuade politicians from acting in an overly autocratic or illegal manner. The fact that many constitutional monarchs still retain the ultimate power to fire a prime minister is often cited as the most useful emergency check against tyranny.

A side effect of monarchs losing their real power is that they have become more free in the choice of their consorts. Traditionally, in all areas of the world, royal families tended to marry only among themselves, such marriages having considerable political significance and considered a major way of cementing alliances. A monarch's marriage with a commoner (or even a member of the lower aristocracy) was frowned upon, not only because it flouted all precedents set but because such a marriage tended to confer undue power on the consort's family and cause jealousies and frictions. With the monarch being nowadays a figurehead and democratic ideas prevalent in European society, such considerations become largely irrelevant, and on the contrary choosing a commoner for a consort might help the monarcy's popularity. Thus, the present heirs to the throne in many European monarchies felt free to marry commoners, the choice being made mainly out of personal inclination rather than political calculation.

[edit] List of current constitutional monarchies

State	Last constitution established	Type of monarchy	Monarch selected by
Andorra	1993	Co-Principality	Selection of Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell and election of French President
Antigua and Barbuda	1981	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Australia	1901	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
The Bahamas	1973	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Bahrain	2002	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Barbados	1966	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Belgium	1831	Kingdom; popular monarchy[1]	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Belize	1981	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Cambodia	1993	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Canada	1982	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Denmark	1953	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Grenada	1974	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Jamaica	1962	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Japan	1946	Empire	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Jordan	1952	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Kuwait	1962	Emirate	Hereditary succession directed approval of al-Sabah family and majority of National Assembly
Lesotho	1993	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed approval of College of Chiefs
Liechtenstein	1862	Principality	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Luxembourg	1868	Grand duchy	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Malaysia	1957	Elective monarchy	Selected from nine hereditary Sultans of the Malay states
Monaco	1911	Principality	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Morocco	1962	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Nepal	2007 (temp)	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Netherlands	1815	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
New Zealand	1987	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Norway	1814	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Papua New Guinea	1975	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Kitts and Nevis	1983	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Lucia	1979	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	1979	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Solomon Islands	1978	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Spain	1978	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Sweden	1974	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Thailand	2007	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Tonga	1970	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
Tuvalu	1978	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution
United Arab Emirates	1971	Elective monarchy	Chosen by Federal Supreme Council from rulers of Abu Dhabi
United Kingdom	1688	Kingdom	Hereditary succession directed by constitution

[edit] Previous monarchies

• The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, formed after the Union of Lublin in 1569 and lasting till the final partition of the state in 1795 operated much like many modern European constitutional monarchies. The legislators of the unified state truly did not see it as a monarchy at all, but as a republic under the presidency of the King. Poland-Lithuania also followed the principle of "Rex regnat et non gubernat", had a bicameral parliament, and a collection of entrenched legal documents amounting to a constitution along the lines of the modern United Kingdom. The King was elected, and had the duty of maintaining the people's rights.
• France functioned briefly as a constitutional monarchy during the post-Napoleonic era, under the reign of Louis XVIII and Charles X, but the latter's attempt at reinstating absolute monarchy led to his fall. Louis-Philippe of France was also a constitutional monarch.
• Napoléon Bonaparte, as Emperor of the French, was in theory a constitutional monarch, though he was ousted from France before his line could continue. In practice, however, he is often classed as a military dictator, whose power derived primarily from his command of the army.
• The German Empire from 1871 to 1918, (as well as earlier confederations, and the monarchies it consisted of) was also a constitutional monarchy—see Constitution of the German Empire.
• Prior to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran was a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, which had been originally established during the Persian Constitutional Revolution in 1906.
• Portugal until 1910 was a constitutional monarchy; the last king was Manuel II of Portugal until he was overthrown by a military coup.
• Brazil from 1815 (United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves) until 1822, with the proclamation of independence and rise of the Empire of Brazil by Peter I. After this, the Empire has finished in 1899, during the reign of Peter II, when the emperor was deposed by a military coup.
• Hawaiʻi was a constitutional monarchy from the unification of the smaller independent chiefdoms of Oʻahu, Maui, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi, and the Hawaiʻi (or the "Big Island") in 1810 until the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani in 1893 by conspirators from United States that threatened her that, should she not resign, her people would suffer greatly.
• The Grand Duchy of Finland was a constitutional monarchy though its ruler, Alexander I, who was simultaneously an autocrat and absolute ruler in Russia.
• The Kingdom of Hungary in 1848–1849 and 1867–1918 as part of Austria-Hungary. In the interwar period (1920–1944) Hungary remained a constitutional monarchy without a reigning monarch.
• Yugoslavia until 1945 when King Peter was deposed by the communist government.
• Romania until 1947 when King Michael was forced to abdicate at gunpoint by the communists.
• Bulgaria until 1946 when Tsar Simeon was deposed by the communist assembly without consultation of the people.
• Greece until 1973 when King Constantine was deposed by the military government. The decision was formalised by a plebiscite in 05/04/1976.
• Many Commonwealth republics were constitutional monarchies in personal union with the Commonwealth realms for some period after their independence.

[edit] Other situations

• Japan is the only country with a reigning emperor.
• Luxembourg is the only country with a reigning Grand Duke.
• Andorra, Monaco and Liechtenstein are the only countries with a reigning Prince.
• Andorra is the only country where the head of state is vested jointly in two individuals.
• Australia, whose constitution demands legislation for the holding of a referendum where a majority of votes in a majority of 6 states must occur for any change to take place. In 1999 a referendum was held to change the country into a republic and was defeated.

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

This includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

• G. W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right (Allen W. Wood, ed., H.B. Nisbet, trans.). Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-521-34438-7 (originally published as Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, Philosophie des Rechts, 1820).
• John Locke, Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. (Ian Shapiro, ed., with essays by John Dunn, Ruth W. Grant and Ian Shapiro.) New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003 (Two Treatises first pub. 1690). ISBN 0-300-10017-5.
• Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws. Legal Classics Library, 1984.