If somebody were to ask me that question, I would have to decline to answer on the grounds that two other questions have to be asked to make the enquiry complete. They are:
The first of those I could definitely answer with a confident ‘no’ because the head of state is, for all practical purposes, non-executive. It’s a position of ceremonial figurehead, nothing more. The monarch has a wide range of powers on paper, but they’re meaningless. An elected government makes the rules and the monarch concurs, because if they didn’t a constitutional crisis would ensue and the monarchy would probably be disbanded. A major part of the remit of the monarchy is that it stays out of politics, so what does it matter whether it’s elected or not?
The second question is more open to argument. Personally, I feel inclined to the view that the position of Head of State is an unnecessary expense, but I can understand the alternative position that it performs a useful role in the matter of social cohesion. Does that justify the expense? I suppose it might.
Meanwhile, out here in our traditional little Shire, I gather there’s a hooly planned for the day of the coronation. (To take place at the village hall, I might add, which is uncomfortably close to my house.) I hope nobody asks me whether I shall be attending because, if they do, I’ll find it hard resist explaining that I see no point in celebrating the fact that a kiddies' pantomime is being staged a long way away in London. And then the ever-simmering possibility of being driven to the burning mill by a mob of rabid villagers armed with pitchforks will probably flare up again.
No comments:
Post a Comment