I read with interest Polly Toynbee’s column suggesting abolition of the monarchy (For today, even republicans like me can put up with the pomp with a drink in hand, 2 June) and it led me to peruse Republic’s website. What struck me is that Republic essentially wants what we already have – a head of state who is non-political, advisory, represents the nation and offers a “non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration”. Isn’t that really a description of the monarch? The only difference is an elected v non-elected figurehead. Its assumption is that a non-elected head of state operating outside the political system would, by nature, be corrupt – but aren’t elections a democratic process of expressing political opinion and bias? So an elected head would necessarily be politically biased, the very antithesis of Republic’s holy grail.
The monarchy, certainly during the present Queen’s reign, has had undoubted soft-power benefits for the UK and has influenced the spread of democracy across the globe through the Commonwealth. May I respectfully suggest that Republic gives some consideration to the abuse of legislative power by the increasing use of a non-elected judiciary and court system to challenge the democratic processes of an elected government? I would suggest that that is a far more insidious threat to democracy than a monarch.
Duncan Wilson
Hotham, East Riding of Yorkshire
