‘What is truth?’ asked Pilate, before sacrificing Him as a King, complete with crown of thorns, under the words ‘Jesus, King of the Jews’. Pilate questioned Truth, and without waiting for an answer positioned himself above it, the Roman governor with the temporal power to crucify an innocent man for the sake of a baying crowd of perjurers. Christ, crucified as King, because earthly power chose to believe in the absoluteness of only itself.
Something of a theological beginning, and for such anti-social manoeuvres I hereby apologise most wholeheartedly. Now, before I go on, I ought to say that I am absolutely not arguing that the Bible suggests one particular form of government or social ordering is any better than any other. I’m not saying it doesn’t, either; more that I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to pronounce one way or the other. Rather, I think that passage in the Bible speaks about power in a way that still resonates today, that in a society reconciled with relativisms the only response to the question ‘What is truth?’, will be one similar to Pilate’s; ‘whatever the powerful decide it to be.’
And now, to jump off at a tangent, the relevance of which will (I hope) become clear, I’ve been thinking more and more just recently about monarchy, and lefties, and whether the two can peacefully co-exist. And in truth, I’ve still not decided on an answer, primarily because I can’t quite decide on what might be understood by the term ‘leftie’, even if I have a small idea what I might mean when I say ‘monarchy’. I suppose the question then becomes, ‘is there any argument that can be made, from within the broad context of a leftist account of the social sphere, that might be comfortable with the idea of monarchy?’ And I think there is – which the following disjointed mumblings will hopefully begin to show.
The reason I ask the question at all is because Labour, now in the absurd position of having to ask itself what it means by terms such as ‘national identity’ and ‘Englishness’ (largely because it is widely perceived as being constitutionally opposed to both), is churning through the standard student-radicalisms which, nearly always, end in unthinking appeals for republicanism as if it is self-evidently a required tenet of any authentically left-wing thought. I’m not quite sure why left-wing thought ought to be any more fertile ground for republican sentiments than right-wing thought, and I suspect that the answer has more to do with our unique social history than anything else, but it nonetheless seems to be – and I don’t think it need be.
Having said that, the cause célèbre on all sides of the increasingly whiggish House seems to be constitutional vandalism for the sake of… well, constitutional vandalism. A crooked Commons increasingly urges ‘reform’ of a rather less crooked House of Lords, and an even less crooked Monarchy, for the sake of making the system less crooked. Thus will the ideologues strain at gnats whilst swallowing camels; and all in the name of making the gnats look more like camels.
Yet, there are a variety of reasons why this is problematic, and the most potent of them in modern society is to do with power, the possession of it and, much more importantly, the limitation of it. This is only one side of the argument that can be made, another being that old chestnut ‘virtue’ (and ‘truth’), and yet another being plurality as expressed through inter-linking hierarchies. And, though to some extent all inter-connect with one another, it is only the ‘power’ element that I will talk about here (I have written elsewhere how social liberalism has been embraced because it re-enforces the status-quo, founded upon a relativism that it is to the benefit of the already powerful).
And it is that ‘limitation of power’ bit that is increasingly important. On the most basic level, I think this is why working-class communities tend, generally speaking, to have great sympathy for the monarchy, and the Queen in particular. To many, the Queen is somehow above the Machiavellian machinations of the power-hungry political classes, representative of something greater than the crudeness of the Commons, a (sometimes failing) paragon of virtue that represents to the world all that we hope is best about ourselves. The Queen, unlike those who nominally serve her, is never deemed to be ‘in it for herself’, and her reign is characterised as dutiful more than megalomaniacal. Thus do her subjects line the avenues on the great occasions, wave their flags and sing their anthems, all to the vociferous irritation of the displaced Guardianistas, who rather conceitedly think that meritocratic society ought rightfully to be honouring them instead.
As such Labour, when it proposes republicanism as the antidote to institutional inequality is primarily giving voice to a largely middle-class chippiness, resentful of the fact that there could be an institutional and ideological barrier to its own (imagined) upward mobility. It doesn’t like the idea that, in a society largely tilted toward its own interests, there yet exists a level to which it cannot ultimately ascend. Bourgeois sensibilities bristle at the thought, and so under such comically misused terms as ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ they continue to vandalise those very structures that level the playing field and act as a constraint on the accumulation of power by an otherwise all-consuming oligarchy.
As such, I think republican thinking is as much a sign of the gentrification of left-wing thought as anything else. Accordingly, the left that in the name of ‘freedom’ once rallied against the capitalist system, now seeks merely to lessen the effects of that system upon its victims, and construes ‘equality’ instead along lines that best reflect its own priorities and prejudices. The ordinary worker has been cast aside, bribed to keep his counsel, whilst the chippy bourgeoisie sharpen their knives in search of that much less insidious enemy to ‘equality’ (and indeed potential ally of the commoner), that being the monarch.
And that’s just the point. The monarch can legitimately be seen as the last line of defence against an all-out victory of the plutocracy, one of the few possessions of the people that the rich man cannot buy precisely because the position is forever beyond his private ownership (unless it is stolen in the interests of the oligarchical elite as in 1688 – from whence some would situate the now dying battle against capitalistic ideology). In that sense, the monarch is an embodiment of the commonality that the left should comfortably embrace – she both belongs exclusively to, and thereby attracts the loyalty of, her people. In a world in which the rich are the powerful and can possess all they desire, the position of monarch they do not and cannot: it would be a cowardly act of surrender to offer up to the plutocracy the very thing they cannot possess, for no other reason than we no longer see any need to uphold the existence of things they cannot possess.
Now of course, the new metropolitan left, the ‘liberal-left’ won’t see things in these terms, having become drunk on a doctrine that exists primarily to dismantle all opposition to their own advancement. But those at the bottom needn’t confuse friend with foe just because their uppity ‘comrades’ tell them to. The reality is that the common man does still need to react against unwarranted and unwarrantable power interests; but those interests do not reside in the position of the monarch. The tables that have been tilted have certainly not been tilted by the monarch, they have not been designed and constructed from within the debating chambers of Buckingham Palace. Rather they increasingly reside and emanate from within precisely that circle that shouts so vociferously for, amongst various other self-interested things, the disestablishment of monarchy. And it is the restraint of these that should concentrate the mind.
In that sense, the monarch can be viewed a genuine friend and ally, an albeit increasingly anachronistic stick in the mud that nonetheless cannot succumb to the will and whims of a rapacious petit-bourgeoisie. And a monarch who realises this central ethic of service, who knows his or her role in defending the people from those that would seek ultimate control, whose very power consists in the limitation of power - it is this vision of monarchy that lefties can surely share common ground with (on that score, the post-Hanoverian preference for dispensing monies on Maundy is a less authentic reflection of the call to service that was demonstrated in the pre-Hanoverian tradition of the washing of feet on Maundy).
In short it comes down to this; if left-wing thinking at its most basic level includes the defence of the vulnerable against the powerful, then the focus of ire certainly should not be the monarch, who at any rate could without much difficulty be understood as a defence against precisely this domination. Because in truth, it is not the Queen that dispossess and dispossessed, but her tribunes.
As such, it is a strange leftie that has given up the fight against capitalism but has taken up arms against the monarch; it seems to me that either their sense is deficient or else their sight. Whichever one it is, it certainly wouldn’t be wise to follow them; one might end up walking off a cliff.
Thoughts, anyone?
As someone who is vehemently left wing and pro-monarchy, I see nothing wrong with blending the two. the Monarchy is not in it for itself as Graham Smith likes to claim (this ceased pretty much back in the 1600′s when it was rather dangerous to be a Monarch). I think that Labour realises just how much support the Monarchy has from the people (the middle class aren’t the only people to populate the UK) and has simply decided to realise that the Monarchy is a very useful institution. Were we to have a well codified constitution then our Monarch could be enpowered to stop politicians who are feeling the itch to step out of line. Again Mr Smith has not thought of this one (he rarely thinks of anything despite a good education).
A very odd and confused piece which seems to presume: a) the Labour party proposes republicanism (it never has done), b) that republicanism is a left wing issue (it’s not), c) that the monarchy has any role in limiting the power of politicians, when in fact it has done more than any to hand them unlimited power (and in fact republicanism is all about limiting the power of politicians – such a basic misunderstanding of political theory is worrying) and d) that the Windsor family aren’t “in it for themselves”, when, while it is a largely irrelevant point, all the evidence to the contrary is staring us in the face.
A very odd and confused response which seem to presume:
a) this article suggests the Labour party proposes republicanism (the article suggested no such thing, and doesn’t assume it either)
b) that republicanism is a left-wing issue (I know it needn’t be, even if in this country it tends to be – hence me saying ‘I’m not quite sure why left-wing thought ought to be any more fertile ground for republican sentiments than right-wing thought, and I suspect that the answer has more to do with our unique social history than anything else, but it nonetheless seems to be’),
c) that this article is arguing for the limiting power of the monarchy (it’s more directly arguing for the limiting power of monarchism, and indirectly lamenting it’s loss – such a basic misunderstanding of the argument is worrying) – N.B. I must admit, I always find this argument most curious: ‘government has only been able to become as powerful as it has because it has usurped the power of the Crown, that is, because of the weakness of our monarchism, therefore we should abolish monarchy altogether, because that would help us limit the power of government.’
and d) well…. perhaps my face is just pointing in the wrong direction, because I fail to see all the evidence pointing in any such direction.
Where, pray, was the ‘limiter of power’ when the Lisbon treaty was foisted upon us? Where was she when we were taken to war on a lie? Where was she when people’s right to be a member of a trade union was summarily removed by Mrs Thatcher? What does she do to limit the power of the executive? What does she do to limit the power of the PM? The answer to all my questions is a big fat nothing. Roll on the Republic of Great Britain when we will have a Head of State who is of some use, when we will have a written constitution not one made up on the hoof for pragmatic reasons by politicians, when we won’t be living under an elective dictatorship, when the politicians you monarchists almost universally revile will be properly accountable, when the people will be sovereign in their own parliament.
Bang on Bob – as good a lament of the diminution of the position of monarch as anything I wrote.
Only, it would seem to me that the best antidote to the weakness of the monarchy, and the negative consequences you identify that has accompanied such a weakening, is to once again strengthen it.
You cannot strengthen the monarchy. so that that power is legitimate. by any other means than to give it a democratic mandate from the people, and then it will no longer be a monarchy.
I wish I could give a comprehensive answer about Chesterton and monarchism– unfortunately, my knowledge of Chesterton isn’t good enough. As a monarchist, and someone who sees some value in the ideal of aristocracy, I’m always a bit disappointed that he rarely mentions monarchy with enthusiasm and he always seems to condemn aristocracy– which he seemed to see as, not the bastion of tradition and history it was meant to be, but usually in the vanguard of every trendy idea that came along. (He may have a point there.)
The only good words Chesterton had for monarchy, as far as I can see, is that the rule of one man who was essentially chosen at random (as in hereditary rule) was the next best thing after radical democracy.
Burke and Cobbett also condemned the aristocracy at points, and considering Chesterton’s fondness for Cobbett’s account of the Protestant Reformation (a triumph of plunderers who have used the state to uphold their power and plunder ever since)…… hmmm, I wonder…
Chesterton (whose views on monarchy I don’t share) would probably say that having the Queen knight plutocrats for their services to industry is hardly a brake against capitalism. I think an aristocracy and a monarchy are perfectly compatible with capitalism.
The brake, I think, is more on revolutionary thinking– the abolition of the past and of tradition. And for that (as for other reasons) I admire monarchy.
True, but I would expect Chesterton also to note that Monarchs didn’t always choose their knights by how successful they were in business, and that they now do is in some sense a rejection of the monarchical ethic of (say) King Alfred, and an embrace of something lesser (I have some half-remembered things shooting round my mind that Chesterton wrote in the Crimes of England – to do with the inflation of Germanism that came about when we imported the Hanoverians, by which I think he meant a whole protestant and capitalistic ideology etc.: could be wrong, will have to check later.)
Which gets me thinking, and on this you might be able to help – did Chesterton reject monarchism per se, or did he just rail against the kind of monarchy we had imported, and what it had become, and the role it played in shoring up the oligarchy etc.?
Cheers.
Well, the better question would surely be what powers the monarch should have, as opposed to what powers she does have, considering the continuing diminution of her role.
But we are where we are, and I suppose my reply would be along the lines that the monarch’s constitutional role is itself of great symbolic worth; the fact that there exists even a theoretical upper-ceiling is a quiet statement of intent which in itself can be incredibly powerful. To use a bit of a silly example, it is interesting how in a society in which the monarch is increasingly constitutionally powerless, nonetheless the refusal to address her and her position with respect becomes a talking point that informs perceptions, often negative, of that particular person (I’m thinking of Cherie Blair, amongst others). And people who indulge in such discourtesy often know exactly what they are doing, and are trying to make a statement in doing so; which in itself is instructive.
As I alluded to, the ‘virtue’ and hierarchical element inscribed within monarchy also needs a hearing (see for example that Sood blog), though I suspect that argument is beyond my capabilities. But on the more pragmatic level of proving a last-line defence against untramelled plutocracy, against the ultimate triumph of the capitalist (to use lefty language) even against the social order and constitution of our country… I think lefties can ally with that, and with their Queen.
As an ardent monarchist myself, I really wonder if you are making too much of the monarch’s constitutional role? After all, what limiting of power does the Queen really possess, beyond refusing to dissolve parliament or appoint a government, both powers she could only exercise at the monarchy’s peril?
Personally, I think a monarchy can (and perhaps only should) have symbolic value; indeed, a country that cherishes its monarchy is resisting the very vandalism you describe so well, and I do think that restraint has an important ripple effect on the political and social life of a country.