Doing some research on newer political parties, I went to a meeting of the Italian five star movement in London. It was nearly entirely Italian ex-pats because it's a very Italian movement, but it was an interesting experience none the less. Afterwards I spoke to various activists trying to find out more about the movement and their own personal values. I was surprised to hear this, still it makes a change from Americans fawning over the monarchy that you so often see online. However I responded: I assume a level of agreement with me on this point. But he responded: I started to see where he was coming from at this point so responded: He agreed with my interpretation. We went on to discuss the grass roots nature of the five star movement and how restoring power to the people from the political elite was an important goal it had, and how this was bucking the trend elsewhere of declining political party participation. So, let me pose some ideas that came from this exchange: Is republicanism an important vehicle to restore sovereignty not just from the monarchy, but also from parliament to the people? By mixing the two issues together, does this add too much confusion to a relatively minority view - or does it empower it further? Thoughts?
A hodge podge of random thoughts: Political advice from an Italian? Not if you value stability. There is a strain of republicanism (at least in the US) that is decidedly anti-democratic. Be wary of this. Is parliament sovereign because the monarch concedes that power to them? In other words, isn't the monarch still sovereign, with parliament simply the instrument? Would parliament have any sovereignty in a republic? Wouldn't it simply be a tool of the people? The problem of representative governing chambers being unpopular can arise even in systems where the people are sovereign (cfe USA). If parliament is truly sovereign (rather than the Queen), would this change if you got rid of her? Finally, despite what makes for popular footage on British TV, Americans do not fawn over the silly royals. They are a solid reminder of why our ancestors made some very good decisions starting about 240 years back (original tea party anniversary was last night).
5 star have only been around for a few years, but I certainly know how corrupt Italian politics is in general I've never understood what US republicanism stands for and it's link to the term in the UK Correct Well that's the idea posted, that a true republican government would get its sovereignty from the people. I'm not advocating that. It's all about democratic accountability. Do we have it? I say hardly at all. No. But I'm trying to find out from the UK republican movement whether they're interested in mixing the two issues or not I used to work in Green Park by Buckingham Palace, it gives me a certain world-view
If you abolished the monarchy, would there be a president? And would he or she be elected by national popular vote? Seems like that could be a useful check on Parliament, as unlike a monarch a president's power would be more than ceremonial.
A lot of skepticism towards getting rid of the monarchy actually comes from the concern about the powers an elected head of state would have. The minute people say the words 'President Thatcher' or 'President Blair' cringing ensues from nearly everyone. Plus the armed forces prefer swearing their allegiance to a non party political head of state. Currently the checks on parliament provided by the monarchy include Prince Charles sending constitutionally secret messages about homoeopathy to government ministers - I'm obviously not a believer that transferring power up is the right direction to be sending it. In general, it's really easy to criticise a replacement head of state's title, roles and responsibilities, so much so that it's such a unpopular idea. Hence me wondering whether this alternative view point could have more legs
I think the principle of popular sovereignty (citizens not subjects) is very important. And if it were up to me I'd abolish the monarchy in the morning. But from a point of view of constitutional stability, you can kind of understand the reluctance. The British system with all its quirks has been remarkably durable, and remarkably flexible.
