Yeah, the trick is that you’re not really talking about ‘getting rid of the monarchy’. If it was really as simple a question as ‘should we stop being a monarchy’, it would be fairly easy to get majority support sometime and convert to a republic. The trick is that there would also need to be some restructuring of the form of government, and you’d actually need to get a majority in favor of one specific model. You could have a separate elected president, you could have the prime minister take on head of state role, you could have parliament appoint a head of state, and they could all have varying degrees of power in the new structure, and there are good arguments for a variety of choices. But unless the Royal Family does something to make itself unwelcome, you’re not going to get a majority of people supporting any one of the alternate models, so you’re not going to get support for a switch.
“The Royal Family doing something to make itself unwelcome” is not the only reason why a country might choose a republican form of government; why should it be? And, as already pointed out, that hasn’t been a driving factor in any of the many monarchy-reupublic transitions that the Commonwealth has already seen. The decision is usually driven by people’s views about their own country, not by their views about members of the royal family. That would be an incredibly shallow basis on which to make such a decision.
I’m not saying that because the transition was smooth in Uganda, etc, so it will therefore be smooth in Australia, etc. I’m just saying that, if you want to make the transition, there are plenty of models on offer and plenty of precedents for how to do it.
Not all of the transitions were sudden. (Most of) Ireland acheived independence in 1922; the link with monarchy was cut in stages in 1936 and 1948. Fiji achieved independence in 1970; it became a republic in 1987. Sri Lanka made the change 24 years after independence; so did Mauritius. Pakistan waited 9 years before making the change; Sierra Leone 10 years. The record is held by South Africa, which achieved Dominion status in 1910 but did not become a republic until 50 years later.
The truth is that every transition from realm to republic is different; it is driven by different considerations, happens in a different context and is shaped by different historical factors. But, in a whole variety of contexts and circumstances and for a whole variety of reasons, many countries have made the transition, so it’s eminently doable.
I didn’t say it was the only reason why “a country” might change to a republican form of government, I was talking about the UK specifically. The other Commonwealth countries severed ties with a distant foreign monarch while creating or redefining their own country’s government. The Queen isn’t foreign to the UK, which makes the situation rather different, and has a government that has slowly evolved over a long period, not one in the midst of creation or rapid transition.
I’m also not sure why it would be ‘shallow’ to base a decision on whether to have a monarchy on what the monarchs actually do, that seems significantly less shallow than ‘we should ditch the monarchy because it’s old fashioned’.
Because if your objection to monarchy is the failiings of a particular monarch, you shouldn’t wait for a low-grade monarch to come along before doing something about it. Given the selection process, it’s pretty well enevitable that a low-grade monarch will come along at some point. You can deal with that on a case-by-case basis by deposition, as the English did in 1688, but if you thinks its a fatal flaw in the monarchical system, then you should just get rid of the monarchical system right now. If you think your bridge is badly-designed you don’t wait for it to fall down before doing something about it, do you?
Or you could restate it as “As long as the monarch is performing in a way that is not requiring the PM and Privy Council to constantly turn somersaults coping with the consequences, there is no great argument for tying up the governmental and parliamentary time needed to replace the entire system”. It wouldn’t even need to go as far as deposition: it would be just as easy to create some new constitutional precedent that creates a de facto regency or something similar. (Technically James VII/II wasn’t deposed, he was deemed to have abdicated by running away to France).
And many of us been wishing we had more of a parliamentary government - so yeah, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
And in some parliamentary countries, there is discussion about moving to a presidential system, or at least directly electing their chief executive. (Israel did try directly electing their prime minister for a few elections, but they went back, probably because doing this was incompatible with their parliamentary system.)
A parliamentary system is neither superior nor inferior to a presidential system. It’s just a choice one makes. I suspect Americans who wish their country used a parliamentary system largely do so because they dislike the current tenant of the White House.
There’s a lot of political science that disagrees with that suggestion, and says that parliamentary systems are inherently more stable than presidential / congressional systems.
Because the US system has lasted for over two centuries, people often assume that’s a sign that presidential / congressional systems are a viable option.
However, every other presidential system over the past century has failed at some point, being taken over by a military or authoritarian dictator.
For example, in a poll I took here on the SDMB four years ago, the consensus was that Costa Rica was the second longest presidential system, having established its current democratic presidential system in 1948. That’s not much of a track record for constitutional stability of the congressional / presidential model.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=743648&highlight=Costa+Rica
Which isn’t to say that parliamentary systems never fail. Weimar Germany, for example, was a spectacular failure.
However, the research is that parliamentary systems tend to be more stable.
The leading proponent of that theory was Juan Linz, a Spanish political scientist who taught at Yale and had studied extensively why governments fail, particularly looking at presidential / congressional systems in Cental and South America. Every single one of them had fallen to a military dictatorship at some point since the country had gained independence.
He said, ominously in retrospect, that what leads congressional presidential systems to fail is the divided political legitimacy that is inherent in the system. What made the US survive, in his opinion, was a non-ideological party system, where the supporters of both parties recognised the legitimacy of the other party and had a broad overlap of common values. The one time that seriously broke down in the US, you got the Civil War.
Back in the early 80s, he saw worrisome trends that the party system in the US was becoming more ideological and divided , which was one of the indicators in other congressional systems of a polity in crisis.
In the 30 years since then, that trend has only accelerated …
There’s a complex set of interactions between political culture, constitutional structures and electoral systems. Fiddling with one can have consequences (not always foreseeable) for the others, and depend on the others to change in order to work effectively at all.
And the people, too.
Other realms might make their own way, especially Australia, but I’m almost 100% certain the monarchy in the UK will survive Charles and William’s reigns. Charles’ mistakes are all behind him and he’s now fairly well respected, and William seems like Elizabeth in male form - does exactly what he needs to for his role, does it very well, is liked and respected in a quiet way (much like Liz was before she became Queen - Harry is Margaret) and is hugely unlikely to ever rebel.
That means we’ll likely have another 50 years of a stable, sane, and competent Head of State. That’s not something to be sniffed at.
For George we don’t know what he’ll be like when he grows up, but the way he’s being raised makes it likely that he’ll follow in his father’s stead. And if not, he has two younger siblings, at least one of whom (going on the odds) would be suitable. If he were unsuitable, his father’s age means that George will most likely be quite old before he ascends to the throne. By then he would either have mellowed out or have found some way to sidestep the crown in favour of his siblings, like converting to Catholicism.
If the royal family could survive till now, with all the scandals they’ve had and the huge spotlight on them at all times, there’s little that could topple them in the future.
Then again, it is said that the Canadian prime minister is an “elected dictator”. Indirectly elected for that matter, since voters don’t actually vote for him or her.
Parliamentary systems might be stable, but stability isn’t the only property we’re looking for in a political system.
I wouldn’t be surprised if William is the last monarch.
He may not want to pass the burden of lifetime public service to his son.
I don’t know how that would be accomplished. But I assume the royal family’s wishes would be respected.
Tell it to Brian Mulroney and see how he responds.