admission of the state’s “dominant ideology” theory, with the ruling elite utilizing a symbolic institution to coerce the masses into supporting the regime. Structuralist Marxism would identify the monarchy as an ‘ideological state apparatus’, helping to ensure social stability and conformity. The national identification element of the crown has been used to maintain the status quo and the capitalist means of production.
The monarchy is a particularly useful case study in understanding the evolution of New Right thinking from more traditional conservatism. Primarily, New Right theorists believed in minimising the influence and role of the state, believing above all else, the individual’s right to freedom. Whereas old conservatives would have seen the preservation of the monarchy as essential to maintaining traditional values, New Right theory would have seen the crown as inimical to individualism. Nevertheless, New Right thinkers have taken a pragmatic approach to the monarchy. Despite Thatcher’s attempts to break the corporate monopolies and elites, neo-liberals did not attempt far reaching reform of the most archaic of British institutions; the monarchy.
Although this elite theory would appear to be most relevant to the crown, classic elite theory focuses on those who really hold ‘efficient’ power within the state, rather than the ‘dignified’ position of a constitutional monarchy. However, Giddens’ study of British elites in the 1970’s identifies the monarchy as an ‘elite group’ that occupied positions of authority within the political system.
Obviously, the monarch is clearly in a privileged position within society. The crown has had declining influence over the past century, but nevertheless remains integral to the British system. What the British monarchy really represents for elite theorists is personification of Britain’s aristocratic elite; Oxbridge educated top tier civil servants and judges, and the ‘traditional values’ they stand for. The Queen may not have direct authority over politics, but the continued existence of the monarchy helps the British ruling elite maintain the status quo.
The Spanish and Dutch monarchies will be assessed using a most similar systems design to ascertain whether or not the monarchies perform similar roles, and at what cost.
5
The Spanish monarchy is relatively new; its constitution approved by Parliament in 1978. King Juan Carlos of Spain is estimated to cost the Spanish state some 5m a year.5 Heading a monarchy reinstated after the Franco era, the king has negligible assets. He uses the main palace for official occasions only and lives at a modest hunting lodge outside Madrid. The Spanish monarchy does not publish financial reports which obviously make financial
comparison very difficult. The Constitution provides separation between legislative, executive and judiciary and gives institutional backing to the King as Head of State and supreme head of the Armed Forces.
Both Spain and Britain are constitutional monarchies, and function in fairly similar ways. They are both accountable to a Parliament, (in Spain the Cortes Generales). The Spanish monarchy is similar to the British monarchy in that the King Juan Carlos I act as head of state but is not politically involved. The constitution says he: \the institutions, assumes the highest representation of the Spanish state in international relations ... and performs the functions expressly conferred on him by the constitution and the law.\ Both British and Spanish monarchs can summon and dissolve the legislative body of their country, although in either case it has not happened in recent history. Both monarchs can award honours, peerages and distinctions. Both monarchs can also declare war and make peace, although both are supposed to confer with the legislative bodies before. In practice however, it would be very unlikely that either monarch would declare war. The key difference between the monarchies is that the Spanish monarchy has the power to call elections or referendums under the terms provided in the constitution.
The Netherlands have been an independent monarchy since 1815, and since have been governed by members of the house Orange-Nassau. The present monarchy was established in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna as part of the re-arrangement of Europe after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Both Britain and the Netherlands share constitutional monarchies and function in loosely similar formats. Acts of Parliament and Royal Decrees are signed by both the sovereign and the minister responsible. Unlike Britain’s Royal Family, the Netherlands has a system which includes the ‘royal house’ and the ‘royal family’; both of which are seen as separate entities. 5
The Guardian, ‘Royals who pedal all the way to bank’, Jon Henley, Wednesday June 30, 1999
6
Members of the royal family are not necessarily members of the royal house. Membership of the royal house is restricted to the head of state, the former head of state, the members of the royal family in line for the throne, and their spouses. Also, dissimilarly to the British monarchy, on the arrival of a new monarch, some members of the Royal House may lose their title to the throne and therefore membership to the Royal House. Similarly to the British Monarchy, the monarchy receives an annual allowance from the state which is divided up to cover staff costs, costs incurred in royal duties and an income component. However, unlike the British monarchy, none of these are subject to taxation, but like all other Dutch citizens personal resources are. Through bad investment in the first half of the twentieth century, the Dutch monarchy was not as wealthy as some. Consequently, in the 1960’s a commission found that the Royal House needed more money to cover their official expenditure. None of the Royal palaces are owned by the monarchy – they were all passed into state ownership over the last few hundred years. However, the Royal Family do own their own private property.
Both the Spanish and Dutch monarchies appear to perform the same constitutional roles as Head of State as well as performing similar non-constitutional roles; there is no great difference in their roles. However, as other monarchies are much less candid about their spending and the cost to their citizens, ascertaining whether or not these systems perform these roles at less expense to their taxpayers is very difficult.
Using a MDSD, it is important to look at the French Presidential Republic system because it boasts both a strong national identity and a strong President. France became a Republic during the French Revolution in October 1792 after the monarchy was abolished and King Louis XVI was executed.
The French president is elected for seven years, nominally appoints the prime minister and has to approve ministerial appointments. They are in charge of foreign policy, head of the military, and conduct weekly cabinet meetings. They also have the power to dissolve parliament and call elections and referendums. The “president of the Republic is the president of all the French people. His historic responsibility is to bring them together, to listen to the message addressed to us and to act.” 6
6
Alain Juppe (former Prime Minister)
7
Charles de Gaulle's influence on the presidency reinforced the authority of the presidency at the expense of the rest of the government. Whereas the constitution charges the government to \Since then, his successors have adopted a similar pattern of behaviour, assuming
responsibility for major portfolios such as foreign affairs, defence, health, education and the economy. The prime minister, however, has gradually gained in stature. Constitutionally, he is responsible for the determination of governmental policy and exercises control over the civil service and armed forces. And while all major decisions tended to be taken at the élysée Palace under de Gaulle, responsibility for policy, at least in internal matters, has slowly passed to the head of the government.
According to the French constitution, the president's powers are relatively limited, involving the usual head-of-state figurehead roles - presiding over the higher councils and committees of national defence, acting as commander in chief of the armed forces, signing the more important decrees, appointing high civil servants and judges and dissolving the National Assembly. However, the French president has much more power than the British Prime Minister would have; the president undertakes much more the role of a monarch. The reason for this is a strong president means there is less power in the executive.
The president is paid ￡46,000 a year and also receives ￡595,260 for the upkeep of the Elysee Palace, ￡781,990 for personal staff, ￡345,971 for travel costs and ￡196,208 to meet the costs of the car pool: a total of ￡1.96m. He also has the use of several chateaux. On retirement, he receives a civil service-linked pension of ￡34,123 a year and can take senior governmental or official jobs. He is also entitled to free accommodation, a car, a chauffeur, a bodyguard and two secretaries.7
A republican system, similar to the French presidential system is undoubtedly less expensive than the British and probably most other European monarchies. However, unlike the French president, the British monarch is apolitical which many would argue is a valuable asset for a head of state. Very few people would relish the idea of a republic. When asked whether people would prefer a president to the Queen, 70% of those surveyed said no (Appendix II).
7
The Guardian, The division of power and privilege, Stephen Bates, Thursday December 7, 2000
8
相关推荐：
loading