Winston Churchill often described p

Winston Churchill often described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.
It is human nature to require a leader at the helm. In our century we have looked to our heads of state for this role. Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the notion of political accountability, while remaining above politics. That, of course, can't be true in places where the head of state is an ex-politician - or in America, where the head of state is the political leader. The British system of con¬stitutional monarchy, like the more than half-dozen monarchies still in existence in Europe, aptly shows why a monarch is a more successful figurehead than a president.
"In Great Britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual become constitutional," wrote American histori¬an George Brinton Cooper 40 years ago. In Britain the monarch remains very much at the heart of its Constitution. As constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II holds powers that may surprise many. She can choose a prime minister, dissolve Parliament and declare war. In reality, she waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of Parliament. This system prevents politicians from too easily usurping power and, it may be argued, has prevented a dictator from dominating Great Britain since Oliver Cromwell's short rule in the 17th century.
It is one of the great strengths of monarchy that it has never taken sides in any political debate, that it shows itself, as an institution, to be even-handed. This apolitical stance has made it possible for the political culture of Great Britain to assimilate, with relative ease, theories that would appear on the face of things to be radically at odds with a system of monarchical government - for example, socialism. Monarchy in this century has workedwith socialist governments as effectively as with those whose politics one might choose to think were more sympathetic to the institution.
If one were to jettison the monarchy, government, Parliament, the nation and the commonwealth would be turned upside down. Every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major institutions would have to be altered to make way for change. Bear in mind that every organ from the post office to the armed services acts with authority from the monarch. The troops that are sent to Bosnia and the letters that arrive in one's let¬ter box are all effectively Her Majesty's. This is a system that has shown itself to work - and it's generally agreed that if something works, it should be retained. Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and also in terms of the loss of a unifying national sym¬bol and a vital historical link. Only a monarchy can provide such conti¬nuity, remaining constant in a country's ever-changing national vision.
British monarchy has served both the empire and the common¬wealth with great distinction. It is easy to forget in Great Britain that Queen Elizabeth is head of state not only of one small island nation, but also of the 53 nations of the commonwealth, with a combined popula¬tion of 1.5 billion. In short, she is head of state to more than one quar¬ter of the earth's inhabitants. As such, she flies the world nurturing a sense of unity between nations. From this follows trade, and a vital eco¬nomic boost to the nation's industry and commerce. At home, monar¬chy is at the center of a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. (And Elizabeth II donates more than $90 million a year to the treasury). Monarchy adds dignity and historical relevance to all state occasions, and there can be no doubt that it is still more impressive to be met by a monarch than by a president.
And yet monarchy is threatened because the idea of republicanism seems more democratic and less overtly hierarchical. After the "annushorribilis," "Camillagate," "Squidgygate" and other royal antics, support for the monarchy in Great Britain dropped to 38 percent. Yet these poll results stem largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words "monarchy" and "royal family". In a monarchy there is only one person of importance: the reigning monarch. The public actions and statements of other members of the royal family - however laudable or distressing they may be - have no effect on the monarch's power or status. Nor should any individual's character or conduct be confused with those of an institution of much longer standing. Monarchy's legitimacy flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it cannot be overwhelmed by any short¬lived cult of personality. It commands too much respect.
Despite recent bursts of anti-monarchical feeling, however, it is still hard to discover a strong movement toward a republic in this country. There is still no focus for this opposition, nor has any popular political party taken up the call for the monarch's removal. Even The Independent, one of Britain's most respected broadsheet newspapers, in its call for a wider debate on this issue still advocated the retention of Queen Elizabeth as head of state until her death. Taken together, what does all this show? That people like things the way they are.
Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, is an American living in London.
NEWSWEEK March 11, 1996
Why the Monarchy Must Go
It's anti-democratic - and holds Britain back
Michael Elliott
I was a teenager in suburban Liverpool when I decided I was a repub¬lican. It seemed to be a pretty easy act of rebellion - a bit like wearing flared hipsters on Sunday. Yet it's a funny thing: like anyone halfway sensible, I've managed to jettison almost everything that I held dear 30 years ago. Not republicanism. The older I get, the more implacably I become convinced that Britain won't get some big questions right unless it dumps the monarchy. Plainly, republican sentiment has risen in Britain during the monarchy's awful 1990s, but it's still a minority taste, and it will take more than a few giddy antics from Chuck, Di and the gang to convince most Britons that they are better off without the whole lot. Malcolm Fraser, an erstwhile conservative prime minister of Australia, has said that "the harsh reality is that the young royals have done the monarchy immeasurable harm." They certainly have, but the case for republicanism has to be made on principle, not on the sordid foolishness of the moment.
The simple, straightforward case against monarchy is that in a democracy it is inappropriate for the head of state to be determined by heredity. Positions of public authority should, wherever possible, be acquired on merit and confirmed by a democratic mandate. The obvi¬ous riposte is to note - as British monarchists have for a century - that the queen "reigns but does not rule", and to point to societies like the Netherlands and Denmark where democracy coexists with monarchy. Why not Britain?
Because Britain is different. In the 19th century, the British elite staved off revolution by giving a little bit of ground every few years to the forces of democracy. That was no doubt wise: but it has left modern Britain with a system of government that is in many ways premodern, and in which heredity still looms large. Arguably, that mattered little until the 1980s. But it matters a lot now. For in the last 15 years, British soci¬ety has been stood on its head. From a closed, inward-looking, placid¬ly shabby sort of place, it has become an energetic, entrepreneurial society with a diaspora spread across the globe. From a place in which everyone knew his place, it has become one of the most delightfully undeferential places on earth. Its institutions, from the BBC to labor unions, have been subject to withering fire. This, above all else, is the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, who, when the history books are written, will be identified as the person who thrust a dagger into the heart of monarchy. For at just the time when the British decided that authority had to be not inherited but earned, the monarchy went into a tailspin.
The royal family, in one of the little phrases that we learned at school, was supposed to be a "mirror to our better selves." In the 1980s and 1990s, it became precisely the opposite - a dysfunctional family, alter¬nately mired in Teutonic angst and screeching vulgarity, bouncing from nightclubs to grouse moors, with experience of nothing (or at least, nothing of relevance to most modern Britons), but an opinion on every¬thing. To ask Britain to grant such a family authority and deference is to ask it to perform a feat of gymnastics which will, in the end, delay the necessary reform and modernization of its institutions.
Isn't there anything good that can be said for monarchy? A common argument is that it provides an indispensable link with a nation's past, pro¬viding a symbol of national cohesion. Bunk. Leave aside the miserable truth that at the moment the monarchy is not uniting Britain but dividing it. Remember, rather, that ending the monarchy does not mean abolishing his¬tory, or the shared assumptions that make up a society. I've just spent a few days in Paris, and though I'm guilty of the common British assumption that they order these matters better in France, in this case, they really do. French society is living proof that democracy and republicanism can coexist with a reverence both for the past, for national cohesion, and with every society's need for some symbols of authority. You can still stand to attention for "God Save the Queen" but wish it had different words; at least, I can.
Still, can't the genie be put back in the bottle? I doubt it. Even if for some odd reason one thought that the Britain of the future would be a more suc¬cessful society if it could rediscover deference, it strains belief to think that the monarchy can earn it. Tabloid culture isn't going to go away; on the contrary, it is (like TV in the United S

Результаты (английский) 1:

Winston Churchill often described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being imperfect-but the best that man had yet devised.It is human nature to require a leader at the helm. In our century we have looked to our heads of state for this role. Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the notion of political accountability, while remaining above politics. That, of course, can't be true in places where the head of state is an ex-politician-or in America, where the head of state is the political leader. The British system of con stitutional ¬ monarchy, like the more than half dozen monarchies still in existence in Europe, aptly shows why a monarch is a more successful than a figurehead president."In Great Britain, things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual become constitutional," wrote American histori ¬ an George Brinton Cooper 40 years ago. In Britain the monarch remains very much at the heart of its Constitution. As constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II holds powers that may surprise many. She can choose a prime minister, dissolve Parliament and declare war. In reality, she waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of Parliament. This system prevents politicians from too easily usurping power and, it may be argued, has prevented a dictator from dominating Great Britain since Oliver Cromwell's short rule in the 17th century.It is one of the great strengths of monarchy that it has never taken sides in any political debate, that it shows itself, as an institution, to be even-handed. This apolitical stance has made it possible for the political culture of Great Britain to assimilate, with relative ease, theories that would appear on the face of things to be radically at odds with a system of monarchical government - for example, socialism. Monarchy in this century has workedwith socialist governments as effectively as with those whose politics one might choose to think were more sympathetic to the institution.If one were to jettison the monarchy, government, Parliament, the nation and the commonwealth would be turned upside down. Every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major institutions would have to be altered to make way for change. Bear in mind that every organ from the post office to the armed services acts with authority from the monarch. The troops that are sent to Bosnia and the letters that arrive in one's let¬ter box are all effectively Her Majesty's. This is a system that has shown itself to work - and it's generally agreed that if something works, it should be retained. Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and also in terms of the loss of a unifying national sym¬bol and a vital historical link. Only a monarchy can provide such conti¬nuity, remaining constant in a country's ever-changing national vision.British monarchy has served both the empire and the common¬wealth with great distinction. It is easy to forget in Great Britain that Queen Elizabeth is head of state not only of one small island nation, but also of the 53 nations of the commonwealth, with a combined popula¬tion of 1.5 billion. In short, she is head of state to more than one quar¬ter of the earth's inhabitants. As such, she flies the world nurturing a sense of unity between nations. From this follows trade, and a vital eco¬nomic boost to the nation's industry and commerce. At home, monar¬chy is at the center of a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. (And Elizabeth II donates more than $90 million a year to the treasury). Monarchy adds dignity and historical relevance to all state occasions, and there can be no doubt that it is still more impressive to be met by a monarch than by a president.And yet monarchy is threatened because the idea of republicanism seems more democratic and less overtly hierarchical. After the "annushorribilis," "Camillagate," "Squidgygate" and other royal antics, support for the monarchy in Great Britain dropped to 38 percent. Yet these poll results stem largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words "monarchy" and "royal family". In a monarchy there is only one person of importance: the reigning monarch. The public actions and statements of other members of the royal family - however laudable or distressing they may be - have no effect on the monarch's power or status. Nor should any individual's character or conduct be confused with those of an institution of much longer standing. Monarchy's legitimacy flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it cannot be overwhelmed by any short¬lived cult of personality. It commands too much respect.Despite recent bursts of anti-monarchical feeling, however, it is still hard to discover a strong movement toward a republic in this country. There is still no focus for this opposition, nor has any popular political party taken up the call for the monarch's removal. Even The Independent, one of Britain's most respected broadsheet newspapers, in its call for a wider debate on this issue still advocated the retention of Queen Elizabeth as head of state until her death. Taken together, what does all this show? That people like things the way they are.Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, is an American living in London.NEWSWEEK March 11, 1996Why the Monarchy Must GoIt's anti-democratic - and holds Britain backMichael ElliottI was a teenager in suburban Liverpool when I decided I was a repub¬lican. It seemed to be a pretty easy act of rebellion - a bit like wearing flared hipsters on Sunday. Yet it's a funny thing: like anyone halfway sensible, I've managed to jettison almost everything that I held dear 30 years ago. Not republicanism. The older I get, the more implacably I become convinced that Britain won't get some big questions right unless it dumps the monarchy. Plainly, republican sentiment has risen in Britain during the monarchy's awful 1990s, but it's still a minority taste, and it will take more than a few giddy antics from Chuck, Di and the gang to convince most Britons that they are better off without the whole lot. Malcolm Fraser, an erstwhile conservative prime minister of Australia, has said that "the harsh reality is that the young royals have done the monarchy immeasurable harm." They certainly have, but the case for republicanism has to be made on principle, not on the sordid foolishness of the moment.The simple, straightforward case against monarchy is that in a democracy it is inappropriate for the head of state to be determined by heredity. Positions of public authority should, wherever possible, be acquired on merit and confirmed by a democratic mandate. The obvi¬ous riposte is to note - as British monarchists have for a century - that the queen "reigns but does not rule", and to point to societies like the Netherlands and Denmark where democracy coexists with monarchy. Why not Britain?Because Britain is different. In the 19th century, the British elite staved off revolution by giving a little bit of ground every few years to the forces of democracy. That was no doubt wise: but it has left modern Britain with a system of government that is in many ways premodern, and in which heredity still looms large. Arguably, that mattered little until the 1980s. But it matters a lot now. For in the last 15 years, British soci¬ety has been stood on its head. From a closed, inward-looking, placid¬ly shabby sort of place, it has become an energetic, entrepreneurial society with a diaspora spread across the globe. From a place in which everyone knew his place, it has become one of the most delightfully undeferential places on earth. Its institutions, from the BBC to labor unions, have been subject to withering fire. This, above all else, is the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, who, when the history books are written, will be identified as the person who thrust a dagger into the heart of monarchy. For at just the time when the British decided that authority had to be not inherited but earned, the monarchy went into a tailspin.
The royal family, in one of the little phrases that we learned at school, was supposed to be a "mirror to our better selves." In the 1980s and 1990s, it became precisely the opposite - a dysfunctional family, alter¬nately mired in Teutonic angst and screeching vulgarity, bouncing from nightclubs to grouse moors, with experience of nothing (or at least, nothing of relevance to most modern Britons), but an opinion on every¬thing. To ask Britain to grant such a family authority and deference is to ask it to perform a feat of gymnastics which will, in the end, delay the necessary reform and modernization of its institutions.
Isn't there anything good that can be said for monarchy? A common argument is that it provides an indispensable link with a nation's past, pro¬viding a symbol of national cohesion. Bunk. Leave aside the miserable truth that at the moment the monarchy is not uniting Britain but dividing it. Remember, rather, that ending the monarchy does not mean abolishing his¬tory, or the shared assumptions that make up a society. I've just spent a few days in Paris, and though I'm guilty of the common British assumption that they order these matters better in France, in this case, they really do. French society is living proof that democracy and republicanism can coexist with a reverence both for the past, for national cohesion, and with every society's need for some symbols of authority. You can still stand to attention for "God Save the Queen" but wish it had different words; at least, I can.
Still, can't the genie be put back in the bottle? I doubt it. Even if for some odd reason one thought that the Britain of the future would be a more suc¬cessful society if it could rediscover deference, it strains belief to think that the monarchy can earn it. Tabloid culture isn't going to go away; on the contrary, it is (like TV in the United S

Результаты (английский) 2:

Churchill often described Winston parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.
It is human nature to require a leader at the helm. In our century we have looked to our heads of state for this role. Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the notion of political accountability, while remaining above politics. That, of course, can not be true in places where the head of state is an ex-politician - or in America, where the head of state is the political leader. British system of The con¬stitutional monarchy, like the more than half-dozen monarchies still in existence in Europe, aptly shows why a monarch is a figurehead more successful than a president.
"In Great Britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual become constitutional, "wrote American histori¬an George Brinton Cooper 40 years ago. In Britain the monarch remains very much at the heart of its Constitution. As constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II holds powers that may surprise many. She can choose a prime minister, dissolve Parliament and declare war. In reality, she waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of Parliament. This system prevents politicians from too easily usurping power and, it may be argued, has prevented a dictator from dominating Great Britain since Oliver Cromwell's short rule in the 17th century.
It is one of the great strengths of monarchy that it has never taken sides in any political debate, that it shows itself, as an institution, to be even-handed. This apolitical stance has made ​​it possible for the political culture of Great Britain to assimilate, with relative ease, theories that would appear on the face of things to be radically at odds with a system of monarchical government - for example, socialism. Monarchy in this century has workedwith socialist governments as effectively as with those whose politics one might choose to think were more sympathetic to the institution.
If one were to jettison the monarchy, government, Parliament, the nation and the commonwealth would be turned upside down. Every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major institutions would have to be altered to make way for change. Bear in mind that every organ from the post office to the armed services acts with authority from the monarch. The troops that are sent to Bosnia and the letters that arrive in one's let¬ter box are all effectively Her Majesty's. This is a system that has shown itself to work - and it's generally agreed that if something works, it should be retained. Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and also in terms of the loss of a unifying national sym¬bol and a vital historical link. A monarchy can Only provide such conti¬nuity, remaining constant in a country's ever-changing national vision.
British monarchy has served both the empire and the common¬wealth with great distinction. It is easy to forget in Great Britain that Queen Elizabeth is head of state not only of one small island nation, but also of the 53 nations of the commonwealth, with a combined popula¬tion of 1.5 billion. In short, she is head of state to more than one quar¬ter of the earth's inhabitants. As such, she flies the world nurturing a sense of unity between nations. From this follows trade, and a vital eco¬nomic boost to the nation's industry and commerce. At home, monar¬chy is at the center of a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. (And Elizabeth II donates more than $ 90 million a year to the treasury). Monarchy adds dignity and historical relevance to all state occasions, and there can be no doubt that it is still more impressive to be met by a monarch than by a president.
And yet monarchy is threatened because the idea of republicanism seems more democratic and less overtly hierarchical. After the "annushorribilis," "Camillagate," "Squidgygate" and other royal antics, support for the monarchy in Great Britain dropped to 38 percent. Yet these poll results stem largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words "monarchy" and "royal family". In a monarchy there is only one person of importance: the reigning monarch. The public actions and statements of other members of the royal family - however laudable or distressing they may be - have no effect on the monarch's power or status. Nor should any individual's character or conduct be confused with those of an institution of much longer standing. Monarchy's legitimacy flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it can not be overwhelmed by any short¬lived cult of personality. It commands too much It respect.
Despite recent bursts of anti-monarchical feeling, however, it is still hard to discover a strong movement toward a republic in this country. There is still no focus for this opposition, nor has any popular political party taken up the call for the monarch's removal. Even The Independent, one of Britain's most respected broadsheet newspapers, in its call for a wider debate on this issue still advocated the retention of Queen Elizabeth as head of state until her death. Taken together, what does all this show? That people like things the way they are.
Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, is an American living in London.
NEWSWEEK March 11, 1996
Why the Monarchy Must Go
It's anti-democratic - and holds Britain back
Michael Elliott
I was a teenager in suburban Liverpool when I decided I was a repub¬lican. It seemed to be a pretty easy act of rebellion - a bit like wearing flared hipsters on Sunday. Yet it's a funny thing: like anyone halfway sensible, I've managed to jettison almost everything that I held dear 30 years ago. Not republicanism. The older I get, the more implacably I become convinced that Britain will not get some big questions right unless it dumps the monarchy. Plainly, republican sentiment has risen in Britain during the monarchy's awful 1990s, but it's still a minority taste, and it will take more than a few giddy antics from Chuck, Di and the gang to convince most Britons that they are better off without the whole lot. Malcolm Fraser, an erstwhile conservative prime minister of Australia, has said that "the harsh reality is that the young royals have done the monarchy immeasurable harm." They certainly have, but the case for republicanism has to be made ​​on principle, not on the sordid foolishness of the moment.
The simple, straightforward case against monarchy is that in a democracy it is inappropriate for the head of state to be determined by heredity . Positions of public authority should, wherever possible, be acquired on merit and confirmed by a democratic mandate. The obvi¬ous riposte is to note - as British monarchists have for a century - that the queen "reigns but does not rule", and to point to societies like the Netherlands and Denmark where democracy coexists with monarchy. Britain not Why?
Because Britain is different. In the 19th century, the British elite staved off revolution by giving a little bit of ground every few years to the forces of democracy. That was no doubt wise: but it has left modern Britain with a system of government that is in many ways premodern, and in which heredity still looms large. Arguably, that mattered little until the 1980s. But it matters a lot now. For in the last 15 years, British soci¬ety has been stood on its head. From a closed, inward-looking, placid¬ly shabby sort of place, it has become an energetic, entrepreneurial society with a diaspora spread across the globe. From a place in which everyone knew his place, it has become one of the most delightfully undeferential places on earth. Its institutions, from the BBC to labor unions, have been subject to withering fire. This, above all else, is the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, who, when the history books are written, will be identified as the person who thrust a dagger into the heart of monarchy. For at just the time when the British decided that authority had to be not inherited but earned, the monarchy went into a tailspin.
The royal family, in one of the little phrases that we learned at school, was supposed to be a "mirror to our better selves. " In the 1980s and 1990s, it became precisely the opposite - a dysfunctional family, alter¬nately mired in Teutonic angst and screeching vulgarity, bouncing from nightclubs to grouse moors, with experience of nothing (or at least, nothing of relevance to most modern Britons ), but an opinion on every¬thing. Britain to ask To grant such a family authority and deference is to ask it to perform a feat of gymnastics which will, in the end, delay the necessary reform and modernization of its institutions.
Is not there anything good that can be said for monarchy ? A common argument is that it provides an indispensable link with a nation's past, pro¬viding a symbol of national cohesion. Bunk. Leave aside the miserable truth that at the moment the monarchy is not uniting Britain but dividing it. Remember, rather, that ending the monarchy does not mean abolishing his¬tory, or the shared assumptions that make up a society. I've just spent a few days in Paris, and though I'm guilty of the common British assumption that they order these matters better in France, in this case, they really do. French society is living proof that democracy and republicanism can coexist with a reverence both for the past, for national cohesion, and with every society's need for some symbols of authority. You can still stand to attention for "God Save the Queen" but wish it had different words; least at, I can.
Still, the genie can not be put back in the bottle? I doubt it. Even if for some odd reason one thought that the Britain of the future would be a more suc¬cessful society if it could rediscover deference, it strains belief to think that the monarchy can earn it. Tabloid culture is not going to go away; on the contrary, it is (like TV in the United S

Результаты (английский) 3:

winston churchill often described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.
it is human nature to require a leader at the helm. in our century we have looked to our heads of state for this role. apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state was the dubliners the notion of political accountability.while remaining above politics. that, of course, can 't be true in places where the head of state is an ex politician - or in america, where the head of state is the political leader. the british system of con¬stitutional monarchy, like the more than half dozen monarchies still in existence in europe, aptly shows why a monarch is a more successful figurehead than a president. ""in great britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual become constitutional," wrote american histori¬an george Brinton cooper 40 years ago. in britain the monarch remains very much at the heart of its constitution. as an monarch, queen elizabeth ii holds powers that may surprise many. she can choose a prime minister.dissolve parliament and declare war. in reality, she waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of parliament. this system prevents politicians from too easily usurping power and, it may be argued, has prevented a standard from dominating great britain since oliver Cromwell's short rule in the 17th century.