Constitutional monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
Power structure
Separation
Federalism
Integration
Power source
Democracy
power of many
Oligarchy
power of few
Autocracy
power of one
Hybrids
Power ideology
Monarchy vs. Republic
socio-political ideologies
Authoritarian vs. Libertarian
socio-economic ideologies
Anarchism vs. Statism
civil-liberties ideologies
Global vs. Local
geo-cultural ideologies
Politics portal
Part of a series of articles on
Monarchy
Heraldic royal crown
Politics portal

A constitutional monarchy, limited monarchy or parliamentary monarchy (in its most limited form, a crowned republic)[1][2][a] is a monarchy in which governing powers of the monarch are restricted by a constitution.[3] Constitutional monarchy differs from absolute monarchy, in which a monarch holds absolute power.

A constitutional monarchy may refer to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten.[4] While most monarchs may hold formal reserve powers and the government may officially take place in the monarch's name upon request of the royal family, the royal family sets public policy and chooses political leaders. Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "a sovereign who reigns but does not rule".[5] In addition to acting as a visible symbol of national unity, a constitutional monarch may hold formal powers such as dissolving parliament or giving royal assent to legislation. However, the exercise of such powers is generally a formality rather than an opportunity for the sovereign to enact personal political preference. In The English Constitution, British political theorist Walter Bagehot identified three main political rights which a constitutional monarch could freely exercise: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. Some constitutional monarchs, however, still retain significant power and influence and play an important political role.

The United Kingdom and fifteen of its former colonies are constitutional monarchies with a Westminster system of government. Three states – Malaysia, Cambodia and the Holy See – employ true elective monarchies, where the ruler is periodically selected by a small electoral college of the aristocracy.

History[edit]

The oldest constitutional monarchy dating back to ancient times was that of the Hittites. They were an ancient Anatolian people that lived during the Bronze Age whose king or queen had to share their authority with an assembly, called Panku, equivalent to a modern-day deliberative assembly of a legislature. These were scattered noble families that worked as representatives of their subjects in an adjutant or subaltern federal-type landscape.[6][7]

The most recent country to move from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy was Bhutan, between 2007 and 2008 (see Politics of Bhutan, Constitution of Bhutan and Bhutanese democracy).

Constitutional and absolute monarchy[edit]

England and the United Kingdom[edit]

In the Kingdom of England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on the power of the monarch ('a limited monarchy') are much older than that (see Magna Carta). At the same time, in Scotland the Convention of Estates enacted the Claim of Right Act 1689, which placed similar limits on the Scottish monarchy.

Although Queen Anne was the last monarch to veto an Act of Parliament when in 1707 she blocked the Scottish Militia Bill, Hanoverian monarchs continued to selectively dictate government policies. For instance George III constantly blocked Catholic Emancipation, eventually precipitating the resignation of William Pitt the Younger as Prime Minister in 1801.[8] The sovereign’s preference for choice of Prime Minister gradually lost influence over this period, William IV being the last monarch to dismiss a Prime Minister, when in 1834 he removed Lord Melbourne over his choice of Lord John Russell as Leader of the House of Commons.[9][10] Queen Victoria was the last monarch to exercise real personal power but this diminished over the course of her reign. In 1839 she became the last sovereign to keep a Prime Minister in power against the will of Parliament when the Bedchamber crisis resulted in the retention of Lord Melbourne’s administration.[11] By the end of her reign, however, she could do nothing to block the unacceptable (to her) premierships of William Gladstone, although she still exercised power in appointments to the Cabinet, for example in 1886 preventing Gladstone’s choice of Hugh Childers as War Secretary in favor of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.[12]

Today, the role of the British monarch is by convention effectively ceremonial.[13] Instead, the British Parliament and the Government – chiefly in the office of Prime Minister – exercise their powers under 'Royal (or Crown) Prerogative': on behalf of the monarch and through powers still formally possessed by the Monarch.[14][15]

No person may accept significant public office without swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen.[16] With few exceptions, the monarch is bound by constitutional convention to act on the advice of the Government.

Continental Europe[edit]

Constitutional monarchy occurred first in continental Europe, the first constitution that constituted a monarchy was Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791, that was the second constitution in the world just after the first republican constitution of the United States. Constitutional Monarchy also occurred briefly in the early years of the French Revolution, but much more widely afterwards. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered the first monarch proclaiming himself as an embodiment of the nation, rather than as a divinely-appointed ruler; this interpretation of monarchy is germane to continental constitutional monarchies. G.W.F. Hegel, in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820), gave it a philosophical justification that concurred with evolving contemporary political theory and the Protestant Christian view of natural law.[17] Hegel's forecast of a constitutional monarch with very limited powers whose function is to embody the national character and provide constitutional continuity in times of emergency was reflected in the development of constitutional monarchies in Europe and Japan.[18] His forecast of the form of government suitable to the modern world may be seen as prophetic: the largely ceremonial offices of president in some modern parliamentary republics in Europe and Israel can be perceived as elected or appointed versions of Hegel's constitutional monarch; the Russian and French presidents, with their stronger powers, may also be regarded in Hegelian terms as wielding powers suitable to the embodiment of the national will.[citation needed]

Modern constitutional monarchy[edit]

As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was head of the executive branch and quite a powerful figure 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 envisioned the president as an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was then understood, following Montesquieu's account of the separation of powers.[19]

The present-day concept of a constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, exercise power, with the monarchs having ceded power and remaining as a titular position. In many cases the monarchs, 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 position. In the course of France's July Monarchy, Louis-Philippe I was styled "King of the French" rather than "King of France".

Following the Unification of Germany, Otto von Bismarck rejected the British model. In the constitutional monarchy established under the Constitution of the German Empire which Bismarck inspired, the Kaiser retained considerable actual executive power, while the Imperial Chancellor needed no parliamentary vote of confidence and ruled solely by the imperial mandate. However this model of constitutional monarchy was discredited and abolished following Germany's defeat in the First World War. Later, Fascist Italy could also be considered as a constitutional monarchy, in that there was a king as the titular head of state while actual power was held by Benito Mussolini under a constitution. This eventually discredited the Italian monarchy and led to its abolition in 1946. After the Second World War, surviving European monarchies almost invariably adopted some variant of the constitutional monarchy model originally developed in Britain.

Nowadays a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a republic only in detail rather than in substance. In both cases, the titular head of state—monarch or president—serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation, while the government is carried on by a cabinet composed predominantly of elected Members of Parliament.

However, three important factors distinguish monarchies such as the United Kingdom from systems where greater power might otherwise rest with Parliament. These are: the Royal Prerogative under which the monarch may exercise power under certain very limited circumstances; Sovereign Immunity under which the monarch may do no wrong under the law because the responsible government is instead deemed accountable; and the monarch may not be subject to the same taxation or property use restrictions as most citizens. Other privileges may be nominal or ceremonial (e.g., where the executive, judiciary, police or armed forces act on the authority of or owe allegiance to the Crown).

Today slightly more than a quarter of constitutional monarchies are Western European countries, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Sweden. However, the two most populous constitutional monarchies in the world are in Asia: Japan and Thailand. In these countries the prime minister holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the monarch retains residual (but not always insignificant) powers. The powers of the monarch differ between countries. In 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.

In nearly all cases, the monarch is still the nominal chief executive, but is bound by convention to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Only a few monarchies (most notably Japan and Sweden) have amended their constitutions so that the monarch is no longer even the nominal chief executive.

There are sixteen constitutional monarchies under Queen Elizabeth II, which are known as Commonwealth realms.[20] 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. An instance of a Governor-General exercising such power occurred during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor-General. The Australian senate had threatened to block the Government's budget by refusing to pass the necessary appropriation bills. On November 11, 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he sought the Governor-General's approval of the election, the Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter installed leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser in his place. Acting quickly before all parliamentarians became aware of the change of government, Fraser and his allies secured passage of the appropriation bills, and the Governor-General dissolved Parliament for a double dissolution election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority. This led to much speculation among Whitlam's supporters as to whether this use of the Governor-General's reserve powers was appropriate, and whether Australia should become a republic. Among supporters of constitutional monarchy, however, the experience confirmed the value of the monarchy as a source of checks and balances against elected politicians who might seek powers in excess of those conferred by the constitution, and ultimately as a safeguard against dictatorship.

In Thailand's constitutional monarchy, the monarch is recognized as the Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces, Upholder of the Buddhist Religion, and Defender of the Faith. The current King, Bhumibol Adulyadej, is the longest reigning current monarch in the world and in all of Thailand's history.[21] Bhumibol has reigned through several political changes in the Thai government. He has played an influential role in each incident, often acting as mediator between disputing political opponents. (See Bhumibol's role in Thai Politics.) Among the powers retained by the monarch under the constitution, lèse majesté protects the image of the monarch and enables him to play a role in politics. It carries strict criminal penalties for violators. Generally, the Thai people are reverent of Bhumibol. Much of his social influence arises from this reverence and from the socio-economic improvement efforts undertaken by the royal family.

In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a frequent debate centers on 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 some political scientists champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians. For instance, the monarch of the United Kingdom can theoretically exercise an absolute veto over legislation by withholding royal assent. However, no monarch has done so since 1708, and it is widely believed that this and many of the monarch's other political powers are lapsed powers.

There are currently 44 monarchies, and most of them are constitutional monarchies.

  • Constitutional monarchies with representative parliamentary systems are shown in red. Other parliamentary systems (republics) are shown in orange and green.

List of current constitutional monarchies[edit]

See also: Monarchy § List of current reigning monarchies

Former constitutional monarchies[edit]

Unique constitutional monarchies[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ The terms crowned republic and parliamentary monarchy are used by some sources to distinguish one type of constitutional monarchy from another, but because the terms have no widely adopted meanings, different authorities define the terms in such a way that the definitions may overlap between publications. While the Australian Republic Advisory Committee used the term crowned republic to describe a constitutional monarchy where the monarch's role is ceremonial and all royal prerogatives are prescribed by custom and law in such a way that the monarch has little or no discretion over governmental and constitutional issues (and with it have framed the usage of the term in Australia) (Patmore 2009, p. 105), parliamentary monarchy has been used to describe both a system where the monarch's powers are restricted (as in a crowned republic) (Schmitt 2008, pp. 313–314) and also where the powers of the monarch are less constrained by custom than is true of most modern European constitutional monarchies (Orr 2002, p. 3). Note also that absolute monarchies may employ parliaments, as is the case in Oman.
  1. ^ Boyce 2008, p. 1.
  2. ^ McCannon 2006, pp. 177–178.
  3. ^ Blum, Cameron & Barnes 1970, pp. 267–268.
  4. ^ Kurian 2011, p. [page needed].
  5. ^ Bogdanor 1996, pp. 407–422.
  6. ^ "The Hittites", www.smie.co, September 12, 2008, retrieved December 2015  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)[better source needed]
  7. ^ Akurgal 2001, p. 118.
  8. ^ Hague, William (2004). William Pitt the Younger (1st ed.). London: HarperCollins. pp. 469–72. ISBN 0007147198. 
  9. ^ Hurd, Douglas (2007). Robert Peel - a biography (1st ed.). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. pp. 169–70. ISBN 9780297848448. 
  10. ^ Mitchell, L.G. (1997). Lord Melbourne 1779-1848 (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 147. ISBN 0198205929. 
  11. ^ Mitchell, L.G. (1997). Lord Melbourne 1779-1848 (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 241–2. ISBN 0198205929. 
  12. ^ Wilson, John (1973). CB - A life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1st ed.). London: Constable and Company Limited. pp. 161–2. ISBN 009458950X. 
  13. ^ Royal Household staff 2015a.
  14. ^ Dunt 2015.
  15. ^ Parliamentary staff 2010.
  16. ^ Sear 2001, p. 3.
  17. ^ Hegel 1991, p. [page needed].
  18. ^ Hegel 1991, p. [page needed].
  19. ^ Montesquieu 1924, p. [page needed].
  20. ^ Royal Household staff 2015b.
  21. ^ Mason, George; Slaughter, Salli (1996), A Royal Occasion speeches, Worldhop.com Journal, retrieved July 2006  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)[unreliable source]
  22. ^ Davies 1996, p. 699.

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitutional_monarchy&oldid=740353269"