Should the monarchy be abolished?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should the monarchy be abolished?
Position1 of 4›: Yes, we should abolish the monarchy
Argument1 of 4›: The monarchy is undemocratic

Monarchy is an old model of governance that is goes against the fundamental nature of democracy.

The argument

The United Kingdom is a democracy. All people in it should have an equal say in how the country is run. The monarchy adversely affects the way we do politics. The institution of the monarchy and the Crown (not the royals themselves) give vast, almost unlimited powers to our politicians. This is a politicians' monarchy - it makes our government far too powerful and allows parliament to ignore the wishes of the people. The Royals get meetings with ministers, and writes letters to politicians which are taken seriously. Their opinion is listened to and can change the way the government acts on policies.This can either mean policies are worse, or not what the public wanted. For instance, focusing on building new aircraft carriers that were not necessary, or putting in restrictions on genetically modified foods. The Queen has significant power in that she has to invite the Prime Minister to form a government, and can reject them. She also has the power to dissolve parliament and call a general election. This is very undemocratic as it allows a single individual to wield huge amounts of power, rather than the people or their elected representatives

Context

The British Monarchy is hereditary and not selected or checked by the electorate. They also have significant political power, in terms of access to government ministers and officials, as well as the ability to dissolve parliament.

Premises

[P1]In a democracy, all citizens should have an equal say in how the country is run. [P2] The monarchy grants unelected royals privileged influence over ministers and policy, and gives the monarch significant powers such as inviting or rejecting a Prime Minister and dissolving parliament. [P3] This concentration of political influence in an unelected individual violates the principle of equal democratic say. [C] Therefore, the monarchy is undemocratic and should be abolished.

Counter-arguments

Whilst the Royals could have influence, the training and education they receive makes sure they are highly responsible with it. If the Royals abused their power, then the government would take it away.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The counter does not dispute that royal access to ministers exists but disputes what follows from it, holding that the preparation and training royals receive constrains how that access is used, so influence is not exercised as an unchecked private preference. [Rejecting P3] The concentration is not entrenched in the way the premise requires: on the counter's account the powers are held on sufferance and could be withdrawn by government if abused, which makes them revocable rather than a permanent exemption from democratic control.