TEXT No4: The Constitution and the Monarchy
Should Britain abolish the monarchy?
Economist writers present [two] different arguments for the role of the royal family
The Economist Sep 8th 2015 | Britain

On September 9th, Queen Elizabeth II will become the longest serving monarch in Britain's history. Below, [two] Economist writers argue for different futures for the British crown.

The case against the monarchy
Cease campaigning, Hillary Clinton? get back to business, Donald Trump: AmericaÕs 2016 election has been cancelled. The White House has announced that in the interests of political stability the next president and all future ones will be chosen using the British model. Barack Obama will remain in office until he dies, at which point Americans will welcome their next head of state: his daughter, Queen Malia.
Americans would not stand for this*. Why do Britons? The case against hereditary appointments in public life is straightforward: they are incompatible with democracy and meritocracy, which are the least bad ways to run countries. Royalists say this does not matter because the monarch no longer ÒrunsÓ Britain. Yet in theory, at least, she has considerable powers: to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament and more.
There is little danger of Queen Elizabeth II throwing her weight around (though her son Charles has a habit of bending ministersÕ ears* over trivial matters). But the trouble with hereditary succession is that you never know quite who you're going to get. The Windsors are no less likely than any other family to produce an heir who is mad or bad. What then?
The second pitfall is subtler: in the belief that the monarchy forms some kind of constitutional backstop against an over mighty Parliament, Britain is strangely relaxed about the lack of serious checks on its government. It has no written constitution? the current government has plans to repeal a law implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which many Britons recklessly consider a nuisance rather than a safeguard. It is true that monarchs can, as a last resort, stand up for the nation: royalists cite the example of King Juan Carlos of Spain, whose televised address to the nation in 1981 helped prevent a coup. But the more one believes that the head of stateÕs role really matters, the more serious a problem it is that the monarch is chosen using a mechanism as dodgy* as inheritance.
Opinion polls and healthy sales of commemorative junk suggest that Britons and foreigners alike love the Windsors. But the royals may not be entirely good for the countryÕs image abroad, or its view of itself. Britain still has a reputation as a snooty*, class-obsessed place. Mrs ClintonÕs advisers warned her of the Òinbred arroganceÓ of BritainÕs previous government? Britons themselves are gloomier than Americans about the prospects of talented poor people. The image is out of date: by some measures Britain is now more socially mobile than America. But it is hard to shake off the debilitating tag when the head of state and her hangers-on attain their positions not through popularity, talent or industry, but by the mere fact of their birth. Britain would be stronger if its head of state were elected. And if the winner were Elizabeth, then good for her.
The case for the monarchy
IPSOSMORI has been tracking opinion on the monarchy for the past 20 years, and the responses have been remarkably consistent over that time. By a margin of well over three to one, respondents have favoured keeping the institution over turning Britain into a republic. It is hard, in fact, to find any political question on which the British people are more united, except perhaps their dislike of politicians. That sets the bar for a change to an institution that commands a great deal of affection (think of the millions who celebrated the royal wedding or the QueenÕs golden jubilee) pretty high.
Those who would like to scrap a popular monarchy need to be able to show that there is a significant demand for a change (which there is not) or that the institution does significant harm, which is just as hard to do. It is accused of being expensive, but offset against the few tens of millions of cost the fact that BritainÕs royal heritage is a big part of its tourist appeal, not to mention the unquantifiable but surely substantial brand management efforts that the Queen in effect performs on overseas trips. An alternative, elected head of state would not be cost-free either.
The monarchy is accused of entrenching* elitism and the class system, but it is a fantasy to imagine that those things would vanish in a republic? they certainly have not in America, while the monarchies of Denmark, Sweden and Norway are among the most meritocratic and egalitarian in the world. It is accused of damaging democracy because (on paper) the Queen retains vast constitutional powers. But this ignores the fact that there is not the remotest chance that she or her successors would actually use them? if ever she or they did, then Britain could and indeed should consider becoming a republic.
On the other hand, it is just as plausible to assert that there are benefits to a monarchy, on top of the (hard to quantify) economic ones. At a time when most government institutions everywhere are unpopular and even hated, any part of the state which people still actually like is a rare plus, something not to be discarded lightly*. And what would replace the monarch? An elected and therefore political head of state is sure to upset at least one large section of the electorate a lot more than an uncontroversial one who is above politics.
Admittedly, the value of continuity and tradition, and of a focus for BritainÕs quiet brand of patriotism are difficult to assess. The reality is that the monarchy does not do much harm and does not do much good? but it is accepted and liked by most Britons. Getting rid of it simply isnÕt worth the fuss*.


Questions:
1. Find the meaning of the words and phrases marked with *, and try to explain them in English (find synonyms / rephrase them).
2. Is it true that Britain has Òno written constitutionÓ (line 21)?
3. Quote three important reasons why the monarchy should be abolished according to the first section of the article.
4. According to section two of the article, why are the economics of monarchy not important?
5. According to the second section, why could replacing the monarchy with a republic actually be worse?