14

Obviously not in name, but in theory.

The UK is a representative democracy; its administration is elected by the people, who are recognised as citizens, not subjects, enjoying the various freedoms (speech and so on) that that implies, without an obligation of fealty. The unelected house cannot prevent the elected house from carrying out its will if it's determined enough, and the unelected monarch has limited executive powers which can be nullified or taken away by Parliament, and effectively go unused. Parliament has also demonstrated a low tolerance for dissent from the monarch in the past.

In other words all of the same basic freedoms and mechanisms seem to be present that would be in a parliamentary republic. So from a theoretical point of view, should the UK (and other "ceremonial monarchies", e.g. Japan) be classified with, and regarded as, republics (rather than linking them with true executive monarchies)? Are there any concrete implications to this?

Alex Celeste
  • 237
  • 1
  • 7

1 Answers1

2

No. It's a constitutional monarchy. The difference is that the the monarch still has some political powers even if it's mostly symbolic. In a real republic like the United States, France, Germany, etc, the parliament has all the political powers. The Republicans are trying to fool the people by saying that Obama is a monarch but they are wrong.

The political powers belong to the people in theory because many people argue that the judicial system, the media, the lobbies and other forces are taking powers away from the elected people but that is not in the constitution. Anyway, the judicial system applies the laws decided by the parliament not the other way around.

Vincent
  • 372
  • 2
  • 10
  • 1
    The legislature does not have ultimate power in the US -- the president is independently elected to a fixed term (he cannot be forced out except through impeachment) and has real power that doesn't derive from the legislature and which the legislature cannot take away. In systems where the parliament has all the power, the effective head of the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the parliament and cannot stay if they don't have the support of a majority of parliamentary support; in the US, the president's party need not have a majority in Congress. – cpast Dec 06 '14 at 03:09
  • 1
    @cpast yes and they are all elected by the population – Vincent Dec 06 '14 at 03:19
  • 1
    Correct. But the parliament does not have total power; parliament is not a synonym for the population. – cpast Dec 06 '14 at 03:31
  • 3
    -1: "In a real republic like the United States, France, Germany, etc, the parliament has all the powers". This is both strictly and broadly wrong. – Jorge Leitao Dec 06 '14 at 14:54
  • 1
    "In a real republic like the USA [...] the parliment has all the powers." You don't understand the USA's governmental system. What does Obama have to do with the UK? "The powers belong to the people in theory because many people argue that the judicial system, the media, the lobbies and other forces are taking powers away from the elected people but that is not in the constitution." I thought it was the legislature that had the power? Also, what isn't in the constitution? (The power to take power away from the legislature?) – user1873 Dec 06 '14 at 15:32
  • 1
    Oh I made a mistake, I should have been more precise: the parliament has all the political powers. – Vincent Dec 06 '14 at 15:49
  • 1
    @user1873 An example is the lobbies influencing politicians in taking certain decisions.Lobbies do not really take the power away but they might mislead the elected politicians in making them believe that the lobby point of view is the right one even if the population disagree. – Vincent Dec 06 '14 at 15:54
  • 2
    @Vincent Still wrong. Parliament is not a synonym for "the people"; it means the legislature, which has less power in the US than in the UK (as the US president's power comes directly from the voters instead of from a majority in Congress, and he does not need approval from Congress to stay in office or do his job the way he feels it should be done, so a majority of the legislature cannot necessarily get its way). – cpast Dec 06 '14 at 19:04
  • 1
    There are also limits on how much Congress can do; the division of power between Congress and the president is broadly set out in the constitution, and Congress can't just pass a law to give themselves whatever power they want -- unlike the UK, the US has a written constitution which Congress cannot override, and unelected (appointed, but then with life tenure) judges can and do strike down laws and executive actions for violating the constitution. Yes, judges apply the law, but Congress doesn't get to control the supreme law. – cpast Dec 06 '14 at 19:08
  • 1
    @cpast So in the Us, the president is considered completely outside the parliament ? I guess it maker sense considering how he gets elected. When I said parliament I was referring to the elected officials in general, including the president. – Vincent Dec 06 '14 at 20:19
  • 1
    @Vincent "Parliament" is never used to describe a US political institution, but generically it refers specifically to a legislature or other deliberative body. The US president is not a member of Congress; there's a list of members, and the president is not on that list (and is constitutionally barred from being on the list, as is everyone in the executive branch except the vice president [who technically is the president of the senate but doesn't really do anything for that, and a senator leads the senate in practice]). – cpast Dec 07 '14 at 01:54
  • 1
    @Vincent, still -1: "In a real republic like the United States, France, Germany, etc, the parliament has all the political powers". This is still both strictly and broadly wrong. The executive branch has tons of political power. The same can be said about the constitutional court. – Jorge Leitao Dec 08 '14 at 21:07
  • 1
    @J.C.Leitão If my answer is so bad, why don't you provide your own answer ? That would be more useful to the op. – Vincent Dec 09 '14 at 14:37
  • 1
    @Vincent, because I don't know the answer. IMO all my comments here were constructive, and were intended to help you. Besides, your answer is not so bad. It is just that you have put the situation in such a simplified manner that the answer seems trivial, when it is not. My comments have been directed to those simplifications. – Jorge Leitao Dec 09 '14 at 16:05