The Place of Monarchy in Society

Opinion

the knowledge and expectation that they will one day rule. As a result, they are trained from birth how to govern effectively and fairly. In addition, they do not need to worry about making popular decisions; they can make decisions that are good for the country as a whole, even if not all the people like them. By contrast, elected politicians are often concerned primarily with re-election, and so make decisions that are popular, even if they are not the best decisions.

It is nevertheless important to address the many criticisms raised against monarchy. The hereditary nature of the institution raises concerns about meritocracy and equal opportunity. In a society that values fairness and equal chances, the idea of inherited privilege can be seen as incompatible with modern principles. However, similar issues are present in all systems of government. For example, in a system of democracy such as our own, it is more often good orators, who can smooth-talk the people into supporting them, that are elected, rather than good policy-makers, who know what is best for the country as a whole; and in systems of bureaucracy, social connections are often more important than personal merits in deciding on who to hire.

The cost associated with maintaining a monarchy is another contentious issue. Many people object to taxpayers’ money being used to fund a person who did not do anything to earn their role. What many do not know is that the Australian government does not pay any taxes to the King. The King is supported monetarily by the Sovereign Grant, which is paid by the British government and is equal to 25% of the net surplus of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is land that the King owns, and its profits all go to the government except the 25% that is given back. In addition, the monarch is not required to pay any tax, but they have voluntarily paid all the taxes of a regular citizen since 1992. This means that in terms of finances, the King functions simply as an extremely rich citizen, but that he pays most of one part of his income to the British government.

The portion of Australian taxes that are often cited as going to the monarch are used for the maintenance of official residences, security, travel expenses, staff salaries, and operational costs, in relation to the governors, governors-general, and certain other high-ranking officials. It should be noted that these costs would not disappear with a presidential or otherwise republican system. Rather, the funds now allocated to the governor-general would go to the president, and would similarly change for the other officials.

In addition, the costs associated with transitioning to a republican system are greater than one might think. Expenses for things such as campaigns and referenda, modifying the electoral framework, administrative changes such as redefining the roles and responsibilities of government agencies, reviewing and revising existing laws and policies to align with the new system, and public education, would all contribute to an enormous price for what would make essentially no difference, as, in both the current system and most proposals for a new system, the monarch or president has no effective power. The public funds and expenditure would also continue at the same rate.

The place of monarchy in modern society is a complicated and multifaceted issue that remains a subject of debate. Constitutional monarchies have adapted to become symbolic figures within democratic systems. Although concerns about inherited privilege and costs exist, the merits of stability, cultural significance, and the training of monarchs should not be overlooked. The decision to support or oppose the monarchy should consider factors such as historical significance, cultural identity, and the balance between tradition and democratic principles. Ultimately, monarchy can still hold a valid place in modern society as both a unifying symbolic institution, and as a functional decision-making one.

- Samuel Shaw