Constitutional Monarchy, help!?
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. 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. 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 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.
As a supporter of constitutional monarchy, I’m going to try and be objective and answer the question as it’s asked.So, why is constitutional monarchy bad? In short, it privileges one individual and their Family above all other citizens. It bestows upon them the right to retain priveledged titles and styles for the duration of their life and their expenditure both direct and indirect are met by the public. By virtue of their positions, they are able to live in luxury. They are also tax exempt, despite voluntarily choosing to pay tax.
Any monarchy where the power of the King or Queen is restricted by the country’s constitution is, by definition, a constitutional monarchy.The various monarchies in Western Europe, for example, are all constitutional monarchies. These would be the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco.The UK is a special case, because the Queen of England is also the head of the British Commonwealth, which means that a number of countries in that group (Australia and Canada are two examples) are, strictly speaking, constitutional monarchies as well, even though there’s not exactly a “Queen of Australia” or a “Queen of Canada”. In those cases, the Queen is represented by a Governor-General, who has the same powers for the relevant country that the Queen does in the UK - relatively few, as you’ve probably noticed - but is held to “represent the Queen” for all intents and purposes.
Is a constitutional monarchy also an autocracy?
No. The monarch reigns in accordance with the constitution, which makes it a constitutional monarchy. To take the UK example, it's not merely a ceremonial post: only the monarch can summon or dissolve Parliament, or call elections. They have to do so in accordance with the law, and in reality they only do so on the advice of the Prime Minister, but nevertheless the post of monarch has to exist to make the system work. It could be replaced with a ceremonial president. That's how Germany, Ireland and Italy work, amongst others. You could then equally well ask "what is the use of their president?" Having a separate head of state and head of government gives more flexibility than the American system, where both of them are the same person. We're not necessarily tied to fixed dates for elections, for example. And in terms of what a head of state is actually for, namely to be the visible national head and a focus of unity, a constitutional monarch is actually better - they're more visible and most of we British prefer it that our Queen is nothing to do with politics.
How are laws enforced in a constitutional monarchy?
Through the Court system,Parliament,the police,sheriffs,other law enforcement agencies.From http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4695.asp there is an explanation about the monarchy and the law: "In the earliest times the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of legal systems in different areas of the UK. As such the Sovereign became known as the 'Fount of Justice'. While no longer administering justice in a practical way, the Sovereign today still retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out, and law and order is maintained. Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law. The task of administering justice in the UK is carried out by members of a judiciary acting in The Queen's name. The Queen does not herself judge any case nor does she play any part in the judicial process. But she has a symbolic role. By the coronation oath, and by common law and various statutes, the Sovereign is required to cause law and justice with mercy to be administered to all. In the United Kingdom, all jurisdiction therefore derives from the Crown. The courts are The Queen's courts; the judges are Her Majesty's judges and derive their authority from the Crown; criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the Sovereign against those charged; the prisons are Her Majesty's Prisons. In previous decades prisoners used to be detained 'at Her Majesty's pleasure'. In the area of law, as in her other public actions, The Queen acts solely on the advice of her Ministers. For example, although The Queen appoints senior judges, she does so on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Queen also exercises the prerogative of mercy, by which the Sovereign may, for example, grant free or conditional pardons or remit penalties, on the advice of her Ministers."
Canada is fortunate to have a great person acting as our head of state. Queen Elizabeth’s annual Christmas speeches are inspirational. I always have a doubt about the system when I realize this is due to her specific excellent personality, and had we been less lucky in our monarch, we might regret it.For the USA, I would not recommend changing their Constitution. However what they could do is have the Red and Blue parties collaborate and nominate a joint candidate for presidency. Since the president lives in the White House, nominate a neutral candidate trusted by both parties, and ask him or her to be the “white stripe” between the red and the blue.The president’s job is to run the Executive Branch of government, which means to carry out the laws made by the Legislative Branch, and comply with the rulings of the Judicial Branch. So political leadership in making laws could be handed to the Speakers of the House and Senate. The President could carry a white flag, and stay out of the politicking, and be ready to be the national leader in times of war and crisis. If he or she started to favour one side or the other, impeachment could happen rapidly, if both parties agreed to have a joint leader to lead the nation.That would get America closer to what its Constitution wanted, which was a balanced political system, and not a monarchy. The current system treats the President as “the most powerful man in the free world”, and acts as if he or she is responsible for every action taken - effectively a monarch in all but name.America needs to remember that a judge, sheriff, or state governor can overrule a president’s Executive Orders when they are not constitutionally correct. Our Queen is fully aware of the restrictions on her powers. The American President needs to lead, but not dictate. A “White Flag” presidency might accomplish this, within the existing Constitution.
What is the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary republic?Very little. A parliamentary republic is essentially a constitutional monarchy with the monarch replaced by someone elected, usually indirectly, for a fixed term.A problem that often comes up with such an arrangement is that the people who are chosen for the presidency usually have political pasts and loyalties, and while they are expected to lay these aside it’s not always so easy. In many cases they don’t really do this, and when push comes to shove their partisan preferences become apparent. Most egregiously, it has even happened that a president has gone right back into politics when his term was over, parlaying the popularity he gained as president into a prominent place in the cabinet.And even if they do genuinely set aside their partisan pasts and function in a truly apolitical manner, they are constantly under suspicion that they didn’t. Also, it can be hard for those who strongly opposed them during their political career to feel any loyalty to them in their current one.The advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that future monarchs are raised to steer clear of politics, so they come to the throne clean, and are trusted to be truly nonpartisan when called upon to make a constitutional decision. The disadvantage is that the heir to the throne, having been selected almost at random, may turn out to be completely unsuitable, and thus to bring the whole institution into disrepute. So far most constitutional monarchies have avoided this fate, but there’s no telling what will happen in the future.
How did Britain become a Constitutional monarchy?
britain became a constitutional monarchy sometime in the 1600s durign the english civil war wich was fought by the supporters of the royalist kings and lords who wantedf the king to retain his absolute power and the parliament supporters who were, although mainly very wealthy, representatives of the people, they eventually won and the king was executed sometime later they went through a period of time when they were called the commonwealth but this did not win the popular recognition as the government was controlled by the puritans who were later greatly discriminated against and eventually had to leave for the new world on the mayflowerr, anyway the parliament eventually brought in a king who was some sort of far-away relative of the last monarch and they put him on the throne but made sure they were the ones who were controlling him and thus thery became the first constitutional monarchy, the actual bringing in of the new dynasty was called the glorious revolution.
Today there are 35 constitutional monarchies in the world, out of a total of 195 internationally recognised sovereign states. These make up seven of the ten most democratic countries in the world, eight of the ten countries with the highest GDP per capita, seven of the ten with the lowest levels of corruption and seven of the ten with the greatest levels of political freedom.I think that probably counts as working.