Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/11/1122270133/antigua-and-barbuda-may-try-to-remove-king-charles-iii-as-its-head-of-state

by julianlam • 4 years ago

105 129 4 years ago

npr.org

drannex• 4 years ago

As they should.

Pasorrijer• 4 years ago

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement.

I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

wikfwikf• 4 years ago

Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of.

France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.

onychomys• 4 years ago

The US doesn't have a prime minister at all. The president is head of the cabinet, they get to appoint all the heads of the various departments, and then the senate confirms them. The cabinet heads are usually not even from congress, they're often just random governors and politicians who lost during the primary voting for the last election and whatnot.

Ekaros• 4 years ago

I think Europe often had somewhat bad experience with overly strong heads of state. Reigning from relatively benign to pretty bad. Thus I think their roles have generally lessened and more power being moved to governments and parliaments.

shortsightedsid• 4 years ago

Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.

simonh7• 4 years ago

I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing.

If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s not working and we can’t fix it sure. At that point we should find a new way, and our monarchs should know that. I think so far the queen and our new King do know that. Until then as a pragmatist I see no need to upend the status quo.

ajvs• 4 years ago

Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.

n4r93• 4 years ago

explain themselves and answer for their actions

Is that really what happens, though? And if so, what if the monarch isn't satisfied with the answer?

groby_b• 4 years ago

I note that your head of state met 15 prime ministers and had them explain themselves. And not once found fault with them.

That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss)

By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't.

ensignavenger• 4 years ago

Its pretty much for ceremony. In most cases, the Prime Minister or President would be give the duties, if there are any. The article mentioned Barbados gave the duties to the President.

ckdarby• 4 years ago

I am not sure of reasoning behind the downvotes on your comment.

I am Canadian and I do not have a good answer either of why we have a head of state aside from historical tradition.

Veen2• 4 years ago

That is the answer: tradition.

deskamess2• 4 years ago

There is no need for it. That Royal Assent requirement is both BS and law and needs to be done away with. But Canadians who love monarchy are happy to require others to 'swear allegiance to the King/Queen AND heirs' - which includes the pedophile Andrew. There really is no need for this third party to be involved in Canadian affairs. Yes it is in the constitution right now but if you have some self respect and feel that swearing allegiance to some other person is not in line with equality of human beings then you have to stand against it.

Props to Australia for taking the first step and making it not part of the citizenship oath. The other ties are still there but at least you are not making people swear allegiance.

frosted-flakes2• 4 years ago

Prince Andrew is not an heir to the throne. Well, he is, but he's so far down the list that we can safely ignore him.

defrost• 4 years ago

The notion of some abstraction beyond and devoid of day to day | year to year to year political grubbing has some value.

The US has its Constitution, Canada and Australia (my country) have had the Queen.

The monarchy in many Commonwealth countries is effectively toothless having no actual power (certainly in Australia; following the Queens GG in Australia dismissing the Whitlam government some years ago that last loophole of power was written out) but they serve as some notion of something that binds us and transcends party politics.

I'm not sure whether Australia will stay the course with the monarchy now the Queen has passed, the Republicans here have been a growing force and Charles III doesn't have the respect his mother had.

I certainly have no particular attachment to the UK firm.

rsynnott• 4 years ago

Probably a non-executive elected president, like Ireland or Germany. The Irish position, in particular, was fairly explicitly created as a monarch substitute.

Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.

disgruntledphd2• 4 years ago

Sort of. It definitely substitutes for a bunch of monarchial stuff, but the major function of the Presidency was to provide Dev someplace to retire to where he could still influence things.

Since he's gone it's been almost entirely ceremonial with the exception of the constitutionality of new laws part (and the dissolving of government, but that hasn't come up since 1994).

ZeroGravitas2• 4 years ago

One fairly thorough answer:

https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state

The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to:

* represent the nation

* defend our democracy

* act as referee in the political process

* offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration

The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

bombcar5• 4 years ago

Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted to choose X for personal political reasons, how do you prove it?

And if you have a method to prove it, why not use that method to arbitrate instead?

AmadsSalvage2• 4 years ago

I'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen through election, the transition of power is made safer in that the previous Prime Minister does not "own" that power. I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety - arguably because we have a head of state, but even assuming not, this is why we don't dwell on these kind of concerns.

Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa.

Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top.

In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)

deskamess2• 4 years ago

Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that.

I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety

Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy.

the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is.

In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.

mc32• 4 years ago

All those countries, except Scotland and Wales, NI, Mann should do away with the monarchy. The UK may if the whish so, but other countries should have done so a long time ago.

afavour• 4 years ago

This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.

pjc502• 4 years ago

the "better things aren't possible" party

Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that.

I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative, is pretty small. The House of Lords, the voting system(s) and the constitutional settlement of devolution are far more pressing issues.

benj111• 4 years ago

I would describe myself as a practical royalist. If I were writing a constitution from scratch I'd never have an undemocratically elected head of state. But, what we have works. Id rather have the queen any day over another politician. I'm British I can understand other nations having differing pov.

I don't know how Canada does it but in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the party. You don't vote directly for them. As such it isn't a democratically elected position so it isn't really any better than the status quo.

melesian2• 4 years ago

In Ireland we have an elected President whose duties are largely ceremonial (laying wreaths, giving speeches, meeting dignitaries incl newly appointed diplomats etc) but include one v important constitutional duty: to sign legislation into law. It has happened that a President refused to sign without first referring controversial legislation to the Supreme Court.

In the UK the Crown has nominally comparable authority but is in fact nothing but a glove puppet, or at least that has been the case to date. See e.g., the Queen's acquiescence to the illegal prorogation of parliament. She did was she was told to do in her own name. Her son may not be so accommodating and this may lead to a constitutional crisis.

Some check on an overweening executive is always good.

petre3• 4 years ago

You should look into how Adolf Hitler became a Führer to get an answer to that one. The reason is accountability and checks and ballances.

Mvandenbergh• 4 years ago

"King Charles III had just taken the throne last week when one Caribbean leader floated the idea of doing away with the British monarch as his country's head of state."

This is sloppy reporting.

Browne has previously made clear his intention to do what Barbados did and hold a referendum to get rid of the British monarch as ceremonial head of state if and when wins another term. He was asked by the press at the accession ceremony whether he still intended to do that and responded, "yes, probably within three years but not right now".

Is that really "floating the idea"? It sounds like he's confirming what had always been his platform.

I mean, what would they expect him to say? "I was going to but I like Charles so much that I've changed my mind"?

627467• 4 years ago

Any UK monarchy news gets attention... Anything "may" happen, specially when it has been announced in the recent past. Like you say: there was always a plan for the ref, so this is non-news.

Also, why is this in HN frontpage. I get the curiosity of Republicanism v. Monarchy. This does NOT seem to be a good article to be having this discussion.

zach_garwood• 4 years ago

Imagine being a Commonwealth state and having to update your money. Elizabeth was a handsome queen and looks fine on a bill. Charles, though ... well, he has a face only a mother could love.

bombcar5• 4 years ago

If there's one thing monarchies have perfected it is the "flattering painting/coin" of the King where you can recognize it's the King even though it kinda doesn't look much like the King actually does.

cfcf142• 4 years ago

As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.

giarc2• 4 years ago

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them?

I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but just wondering why? :)

bombcar5• 4 years ago

I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...

bluepizza2• 4 years ago

Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.

alex_c• 4 years ago

I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state

Genuinely curious what those would be?

I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical.

For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of governance is compatible with modern Canadian society (or at least what we would like to think it should be).

Not something that keeps me up at night, I don't think it will be removed any time soon mostly due to inertia, but I would definitely not be opposed to removing it.

lm28469• 4 years ago

I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state

For them for sure, especially financially wise

cfcf142• 4 years ago

Couple reasons come to mind: 1) The institutional apparatus required to maintain the monarch as head of state is reasonably complex and expensive, both from a legal point of view and in a financial sense. The governor general is an unelected official whose power technically exceeds any democratically selected person in our government, and they make almost $300k/yr to do essentially nothing but administrative ceremony. I know that in the big scheme of things, $300k (plus whatever other perks/bonuses they get, along with their staff) is just a drop in the bucket, but it feels a bit like theft from Canadians given this role doesn't need to exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada

2) The royals do have a bit of a history of interfering in the politics of past colonies - the recent reveal a few years ago that Charles (I think...?) influenced the selection of high ranking Australian government officials in the 80's was a bit of a shock to many. Apologies, I can't find the right combination of phrases to yield anything in google except tabloid nonsense as a source. In any case, there is at least some evidence that the royals, either through wealth, old-school power politics, or direct action do play about with the politics of other countries, even when they explicitly should do not that. I detest this.

3) I really do not like what the royals stand for. Monarchism, colonialism, genocide, general crumminess. Spending £12 million to pay off one of the women Prince Andrew allegedly sexually assaulted as a minor, using public money, is an atrocious act and one I still cannot believe got so little media coverage here. Then there's all the general petty money issues: Prince Charles doesn't pay inheritance tax (why? Because, that's why). The royal family is except from all sorts of laws pertaining to wealth transfer actually, in some cases literally because it's coded into the laws themselves that Her Majesty is excluded. It's ridiculous. And here in the UK you still are not legally allowed to protest the monarchs. I mean - you can, but you can also be arrested for it. Just in the last 2 days there's been outcry as 2 people were arrested for anti-monarchist protest signs.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-... https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste... https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?...

It's time to let go of the past, try to build a future for ourselves that doesn't centre around the absolute worst parts of our collective histories.

felipellrocha• 4 years ago

I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it.

Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing.

This works specially well for the UK since the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends (Due to mostly tourism) and you have a setup that works for most everyone.

The negative I see, is that you always have in the back of your mind the possibility that one of these monarchs might, from time to time, want to exceed the powers given to them.

Not saying I agree with the system, nor do I have a fight into this, I'm Brazilian living in the US so I've never been under such system, but this is my impartial, look at this system.

visiblink4• 4 years ago

Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.

The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy.

That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

kergonath6• 4 years ago

Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.

There are lots of republics in which the president has only a ceremonial role. Germany and Italy, for example. There are absolute monarchs as well. The title does not indicate the effective power of the role.

A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

So is the president, if you have an appropriate constitution. This is the key, not the fancy title you give to your head of state.

A monarchy has the downside that who gets to be the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic.

kibwen2• 4 years ago

You don't need a monarch for that. If you're going to have an unaccountable position filled by someone without any demonstrable merit, then have a lottery once per year that draws a random citizen to fill the role.

digianarchist• 4 years ago

Everyone assumes that a republic would result in the US system with a strong executive.

Ireland is a much better model that would largely keep things as is, by replacing the Governor General with a ceremonial presidential figurehead.

pessimizer• 4 years ago

Executive-branch head style presidents are a silly, bad idea. They only serve to give a single person a huge mandate that places them in a position to disregard the local mandates of the legislature, and at least in the US they appoint the judicial branch. So they pick the judges and can ignore the laws.

Prime ministers are representatives of the legislature, not above it, and presidents in a normal parliamentary system are like VPs in a US-style system - really just there for tiebreaking (and in that the responsibility for organizing government succession in ambiguous situations, but no real latitude.)

A monarch does nothing but make sure that a country always has race and rule by blood at the center of its constitution.

Wildgoose• 4 years ago

It's the Canadian monarchy just as much as it's the English monarchy.

jasonjei• 4 years ago

Even though the crowns are distinct, the crown resides primarily in the UK, no?

Tsarbomb• 4 years ago

It's wild how many people don't understand this.

To help spell it out for those who keep misunderstanding, when the Queen visited the USA in 2010, she did it as Queen of Canada, under the Canadian flag, with Canadian staff and security.

gadders• 4 years ago

https://antiguanewsroom.com/how-china-has-poured-billions-in...

kibwen2• 4 years ago

"It does not represent any form of disrespect to the monarch. This is not an act of hostility, or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy," he added. "It is a final step to complete the circle of independence to become a truly sovereign nation."

Seems sensible to me.

theplumber• 4 years ago

I don't really understand how this whole monarchy thing is really big news. The monarch has mostly a ceremonial role and would see the door as soon it's trying to project power over the so called realms including the home country(i.e UK).

It's good to hear it at the end of the news but definitly not frontpage news.

Symbiote4• 4 years ago

It is ceremonial according to the PR department of the royal family.

In practise, Charles tried to influence government ministers, and Cameron seems to think there should be less transparency over this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/entirely-rig...

unpopularopp• 4 years ago

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

ladberg2• 4 years ago

At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy.

I'd say you have the correlation backwards: the current European monarchies only exist because they were smart enough to largely defer governance to democratic processes. The ones that didn't no longer exist.

frosted-flakes2• 4 years ago

That's what a constitutional monarchy is.

Symbiote4• 4 years ago

You've named all the European monarchies other than Luxembourg, Spain and microstates.

I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc.

See map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe

thrownawaysz• 4 years ago

Italy has had 69 governments since the end of WW2, they usually don't last more than a year. Not the prime example of stability.

throw0101c7• 4 years ago

I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc.

One metric:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

Most of the top ones are constitutional monarchies. Next up seem to be countries that have symbolic heads of state, with mostly ceremonial duties (and "reserve" powers like the UK HoS/crown).

CogitoCogito• 4 years ago

There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

What reason is that?

Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

Related Stories