Questions of constitutions.
I invited
you to send me questions by email and someone sent me a question about constitutional
monarchies, parliamentary democracies and anglophone countries. Thank you to
them.
They pointed
out that some of the expressions used can be a little confusing – what is the
difference between a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, and
which epithets apply best to which countries?
A
constitutional monarchy is a state which has a king or queen, but in which
their powers are limited to what is written in a constitution or accepted in an
unwritten constitution. This is more or less in distinction with an absolute
monarchy. In Britain, before the English Revolution (or as some people call it,
the English civil war), the king could impose some taxes on his own initiative,
dissolve parliament and rule without it if it suited him, and so on. This was
one of the reasons behind the civil war in England, which opposed parliament
and king (note that at this time parliament did not represent democracy, which
was still considered an extreme idea – parliament was elected by rich people
only).
After the republic
under Cromwell, the son of the executed king was asked to come back and be king
again. However, as one scholar has said « what has been written by the
sword cannot be undone by the pen » and so the king came back under very
different conditions. He could no longer rule without parliament, and shortly
afterwards it was enacted that parliament should decide how much money he received
– paying him a salary in effect. This was now a constitutional monarchy, and
the fact that the constitution was not a single written document did not change
much.
All the
countries which Elizabeth is queen of today (including Australia, Canada and
New Zealand) are of course constitutional monarchies, as are Belgium, Spain,
the Netherlands etc.
Other
democracies like France or the USA are presidential systems. The parliament is
important, but the most important decision maker is the president. In these
countries the head of state is not a symbolic role.
You will find here an explanation of Britain's unwritten constitution
And here a recent argument about the subject
https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/07/does-the-uk-need-a-written-constitution
Send me by email other questions you have!
No comments:
Post a Comment