Hi,
I’ve seen both parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy bandied about as terms describing the UK’s political system. Are they both correct? Is the UK both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy?
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.
That is certainly true of the UK, but in, say, France, elected members of parliament who are offered a ministerial post have to choose between that and remaining a member of parliament, and the President has responsibility for the general direction of government policy. Other republics may also have varying degrees of executive or political responsibility for the head of state, beyond being a constitutional long-stop and someone to open the flower shows.
But in general, there isn’t that much of an effective difference between a constitutional monarch and a constitutional republic, when it comes to government accountability to an elected parliament.
Usage varies. Some writers use the term “constitutional monarchy” in a narrower sense, to designate a country that has a monarch but where the powers of the monarch are restricted by the presence of a constitution with provisions that put checks on the ruler. The monarch may, however, under that reading, still considerable powers (e.g. leading the executive, which means the system is not a parliamentary democracy), but less so than under an absolutist monarchy. Other writers, on the other hand, use the term “constitutional monarchy” for any system where the powers of the monarch are restricted by the presence of a constitution, irrespective of how much power (if any) remains in his hands; under that reading, Britain is indeed both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy.
Usage also differs with regard to the term “parliamentary democracy”. Some writers use it for a system where the executive is under the control of the parliament; in that sense, Britain, the other Westminster-type Commonwealth systems, and most of continental Europe are parliamentary democracies, but the United States and most Latin American countries are not, because there the head of the executive is elected independently from the parliament and does not require the consent of the parliament to stay in office. These countries are, under that reading, referred to as presidential democracies (with France being a special case that is often referred to as a semipresidential system, combining elements of the parliamentary and the presidential systems). Under another reading, however, any democracy with a strong parliamentary legislature is a parliamentary democracy; that would then include the United States.
Nitpick: No, because PatrickLondon was talking about government accountability. Under the British and Westminster systems, the monarch is the head of state, but not the head of government - this is the Prime Minister. The two coincide in an American-style presidential democracy, but British-style parliamentary democracy splits the two roles. The head of government is elected and is accountable to Parliament.
(Technically, the British Prime Minister is not elected but appointed by the monarch; but constitutional convention requires the monarch to appoint someone who controls a majority in the House of Commons, meaning the position is, for all practical purposes, an elected one.)
The Australian constitution (pdf file) does make mention of the office of Prime Minister, and so do the New Zealand constitution and the Canadian constitution (pdf file). Britain is a special case because of the largely unwritten nature of its constitution, but there are statutes that make reference to the office of Prime Minister. So I think it’s fair to say that in all these countries, at least the existence of the office is constitutionally secure. And of course, in actual practice the office of Prime Minister is by far the most powerful one and the one setting the political agenda in all these countries.
The queen is utterly irrelevant to the day-to-day running of the country other than providing a ceremonial “head of state” and acting as a chief diplomat.
She has no executive power and the moment she tried to assume otherwise she’d be toast (probably with the crusts cut off).
The monarchy could end tomorrow and nothing would be different other we’d have to find some other way of appointing a ceremonial figurehead.
So, in all the ways that actually matter we are a parliamentary democracy and just happen to enjoy the aesthetics of monarchy as well.
New Zealand doesn’t have a written constitution, that’s just one dude’s suggested version. Instead we’ve got a whole bunch of separate acts and other bits of stuff that contain all the various constitutional rules. The closest thing we have, Constitution Act 1986 doesn’t mention the Prime Minister at all.
That site for the New Zealand “Constitution” is actually a discussion site. There is no formal constitution as laid out there. In this respect, it is most like the UK, absent an upper house of Parliament.
With respect to Canada, if you’re referring to s. 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schnitte, that section is effete. The PM duly called the constitutional conference as required, so that section has no further effect.
That’s the only reference to the PM in the Constitution. There is nothing saying who that person is, what the qualifications are, what the powers are, nothing. An effete section that simply requires a conference to be called is a pretty slender basis to say the office is “constitutionally secure.”
It is, in my opinion, but not because of anything in the written portion of the constitution.
I think the key factor is that in a constitutional monarchy the head of state, while holding the title through heredity, is still subject to the laws enacted by democratic means. So a constitutional monarchy is more similar to a republican government like the United States (where the President is also subject to democratically enacted laws) than a absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia (where the monarch is above the law).
No, you could have a constitutional monarchy that isn’t democratic at all. Maybe the monarch has to answer to a council of nobles, or to the religious leadership, and the constitution lays out the balance of powers between them. Maybe there’s been no other body at all since the time that the constitution was laid out, but there are some powers that explicitly not held by any aspect of government (but all of the powers which do exist, are held by the monarch).
I like the term “crowned republic”, which emphasises that, to all intents and purposes, a European-style constitutional monarchy is very much like a republic. People from actual republics sometimes seem to fixate on the vestigial monarchy aspect of it and have trouble accepting that such a monarch has no real power.
The Vatican is a elected monarch, though not constitutional I think. Andorra has aspects of elected and appointed monarchy. Norway is inherited, but the current family started with an elected monarch.
I’ve now had time to skim through that document. It’s a consolidation of a number of documents, but most of the references to the Prime Minister are in the intro to the booklet, and in the Letters Patent constituting the office of the Governor General. There is no mention of the Prime Minister in the Constitution of Australia Act, which is the foundational document for the Australian Constitution.