John Donvan

Hi, everybody. I’m John Donvan. And welcome to Intelligence Squared, and to a debate that is prompted by the end of an era that we have just witnessed, and that is the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, who’s personal popularity during her lifetime certainly bolstered the standing of the institution that she represented for a record 70 years, and that is the British monarchy itself. She certainly helped to hold it up.

Speaker 2

It was important to be there. Um, I know that maybe it seems a bit daft and old-fashioned, but if it is it’s 350,000 who are feeling the same way. And, uh, just- just wanted to say thank you for all the service, really.

Speaker 3

The opinion I get is how out of touch and out of time this is. Yes, it is tradition. But, in fa-, I think it just highlights that this is like a fairytale. It’s like a scene out of a Disney movie.

John Donvan

But, now that she is gone, what of the institution itself? What purpose does it serve for the British people and- and how is that purpose defined? And, if it does not serve the people, which is the position that America’s founding fathers took when they declared independence, how should we imagine a Britain without a monarch and a monarchy? What would that be like? What would the implications be? So, long live the British monarchy, yes or no? That’s what we’re debating.

Our two guests are Graham Smith, who leads the group, Republic, and Phillip Blond, who is director of the ResPublica think tank. And, though their organizations have nearly identical names, these two British writers and thinkers will be answering our question from opposite sides. Graham and Phillip, thanks so much for joining us at Intelligence Squared.

Graham Smith

Thank you.

Phillip Blond

Great pleasure.

John Donvan

So, just so we know which side of the argument each of you will be coming from, I wanna go first to you, Graham. And, as I voice this sentiment again, long live the British monarchy, do you say yes or no to that sentiment?

Graham Smith

No, very simply, because it’s wrong in principle, wrong in practice, and bad for Britain’s policies.

:

John Donvan

Okay, thank you. So, that tells us, Phillip, which side you’re gonna be on. This is a binary situation, but just for the record, again, long live the British monarchy, are you yes or no?

Phillip Blond

Oh, a strong yes, uh, because it’s right in principle and better in practice.

John Donvan

Okay, thank you, gentlemen. Now we know which sides you’re coming from on this argument. But Graham, I wanna go back to you first to give you a few minutes, uh, since you’re taking the no side which is actually more disruptive to the status quo, uh, let’s have you go first. And, tell us why are you a no on the question?

Graham Smith

Well, I mean, it- it’s wrong in principle because we are democrats, we believe in equality, the rule of law, accountability, and so on. Um, it is quite obviously, uh, undemocratic to allow someone to inherit public office, which is what this is. I mean, the- the king is our head of state, um, that is a part of our constitution. And, it is a, it is a- an affront to democratic values to allow someone to inherit that and all of the, uh, assumptions that underpin that inheritance, such as, uh, certain people being born into higher status than the rest of us. Um, it’s wrong in practice, and what- what I mean by that is the institution itself is not fit for purpose.

Uh, in the UK we have a formalized set of standards, um, for those in public life. And, the monarchy falls well short on all of those standards, such as accountability, transparency, and so on. Um, it is highly secretive. It’s been compared unfavorably to, uh, the CIA, for example (laughs), for being, uh, overly secretive. Um, and, the, it is true to say that the royals routinely misuse public money, uh, i.e. spending it on themselves, um, and doing so in a way that would get, um, politicians, uh, into an awful lot of trouble. Um, not to speak of the well documented interference and, uh- uh, influence peddled by, um, Prince Charles, now King Charles, who has seen, uh, no problem with trying to sway public policy behind closed doors and without any, uh, chance of the public knowing what influence he is having.

It’s bad for our constitution because it leaves us with a, one of the most powerful governments in the democratic world as far as domestic policy is concerned, the, uh, the crown and the structures around it, um, centralized power in Downing Street. Uh, we have a weak parliament in the face of government for most of the time. We have a head of state who is, uh, largely absent constitutionally, cannot, uh, do anything to protect the constitution or to serve the people in any meaningful way. Uh, constitutionally, the, uh, the queen and now the king will only do, uh, what they are told by the prime minster, and we have seen that many times over the last few years.

Um, so, it leaves our politics, uh, and our constitution in a pretty poor state. Uh, it doesn’t live up to the standards that we ought to expect from, uh, public figures. And, it gives us no real mechanism for properly challenging them, not least because of the secrecy. And as I say, we are democrats and it is widely known that British people support democratic values. But, um, uh, the monarchy clearly stands against those values, not only being undemocratic, but antidemocratic as it’s values that it stands on are to do with medieval ideas of divine right and people being born into, uh, positions of status, and class, which have no place in a democrat society in 2022.

John Donvan

All right, thank you Graham Smith. And, Phillip Blond, you’re on the other side of this. So, why are you a yes on long live the British monarchy?

Phillip Blond

I suppose I- I’m a yes because I think, um, I think a- a democracy needs something else besides democracy in order to- to function well. And I think the monarchy represents the pole of the one, that is the hierarchical pole in any human society. And I think the, if you actually look at human beings, the principle of the one is inalienable. You know, the only difference between, um, a- a supposedly democratic society and the constitutional monarchy is democrats elect their monarchs. Uh, every human society in history has been governed by a quasi monarchical figure and that is what the president is, that’s what the prime minister is. Republics, uh, create monarchs. Constitutional monarchies have monarchs to restrain republics.

So, I think the- the idea that somehow a- a pure democracy eliminates kind of monarchical or hierarchical ru- rule is- is- is for the birds, I’m afraid. It’s- It- It- It’s simply not true. Um, and moreover, a- a- a society that doesn’t have a hierarchical pole, that doesn’t decide on which values it privileges over others, what- what are it’s foundational values, is a society that polarizes very quickly. Republics are more unstable because they lack the ability to foster consensus and to create the condition for common values. What, um, monarchs do is they im-, un-, in a constitutional sacrament is they embody, um, common values and they prevent, uh, partisan values from capturing the highest station in the land.

And so, far from monarchy, uh, in some sense undermining democracy, monarchy, uh, monarchy preserves it and extends it, and it does this in multiple ways. As I alluded to earlier, it first of all prevents politicians from assuming, uh, totalitarian control, if I can put it like that, of the political or social sphere. It reminds politicians that- that they don’t occupy the highest, um, space in the land and that they too are servants. Moreover, in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is- is the state, the state of the role is to foster consensus. And if you look at the legacy of Elizabeth, the- the global consensus that she- she helped to foster and generate is unprecedented.

I can’t think of, um, any other person in the world, even including the papacy, who could command the level of global respect and affection, where not just Commonwealth countries declared mourning, but Cuba (laughs) as- as well, and Brazil, official days of mourning. So, I think that what we’re actually seeing is that in a world where we’re rapidly polarizing into deep- deeply aggressive opposing camps, and America being a prime example of this, what actually republics and democracy misses is somebody who can foster consensus in- in- in hugely divided societies. There’s ample history to show the ways in which monarchs have helped to prevent, um, kind of capture, uh, or- or overthrow of democratic institutions.

And, because they embody a good beyond politics, they can actually limit or constrain politics and prevent it from becoming totalitarian or dangerous. And what I think we’re seeing with the British monarchy is clearly the good that people see.

John Donvan

Okay. So Graham, I wanna bring this back to you. And- And, um, I understand, Graham, that the thrust of your argument is that, um, a- a- an unelected individual with a hi- hereditary position, um, not directly answerable to- to the public is in itself, uh, an- an affront to our notions of democracy. And it’s certainly one I think will resonate with most of an American audience. But before uh, we- we dive into your part of the argument, I would just like you to stay with the point that Phillip is making that a- a- a monarch can be a stabilizing, unifying kind of ballast for a political system, especially for republics, and that in fact the British monarchy has served that role. Do you see any merit to the, to that case that Phillip is making?

Speaker 2

No. And with the greatest respect to, Phillip, um, he speaks in these grand theoretical terms and the theory that he espouses has no bearing on the reality of monarchy at all. I mean, the notion that monarchs, uh, defend democracies from totalitarianism is simply untrue and it is, it is one of the most pernicious myths about the monarchy, the idea that the- the monarch, uh, somehow restrains our politicians or holds power away from them. Now, you know, the, uh, the Greek monarchs, um, of the 1920s and ’30s, and ’40s, uh, colluded with fascists and military regimes. The king of Italy colluded with, um, uh, Mussolini and was in, on the throne throughout his, uh, fascist government.

The, um, Greek king in the 1960s then, uh, was absolutely useless in the face of another military coup. The Thai king, the last Thai king, not the current one, uh, was on the throne for a very long time and over, throughout a history in which the multiple, uh, military and civilians coups, and dictatorships. The current Thai king, and this is a constitutional monarchy in, uh, i- in law, um, the current Thai king is absolutely, uh, in bed with the military dictatorship. Um, and the list goes on.

John Donvan

More from Intelligence Squared US when we return.

Welcome back to Intelligence Squared US. Let’s get back to our debate.

Phillip Blond

Look, I think that- that the institutions themselves require what one might call a thicker count of them. But, you know, just as Graham, um, posits the compromise of- of- of kings, you have the attempted 23-F coup in Spain in 1981, the Thai king in 1981 and 1985 did prove, um, uh, decisive, um, as was the governor general in Grenada in 1983. So- So, what- what you have are counter examples and- and what we’re trying to cast out here is- is the type of role, um, that, uh, a king can perform. Now obviously, both- both kings and political cultures can fail that high water mark. Um, but that isn’t an argument against the existence of that.

Graham Smith

But that, but that- that is the normal, uh, feature of monarchy is they- their purpose is to defend their institution, and they have historically, uh, failed. I mean, we, there’s a reason why they are so few left. And those that have, uh, stood have utterly failed when they have been challenged by authoritarian regimes. Now, in terms of the British monarchy, the idea that the British monarch can defend us against politicians is complete fallacy. The British monarch is utterly powerless, uh, has no discretion, and will only do what the prime minister tells them to do. Now, the queen, uh, acquiesced to a, um, uh, prorogation of Parliament, uh, in 2019, which was then judged to be, um, unconstitutional.

Everybody blamed Boris Johnson for instructing the queen to prorogue Parliament. No one pointed out that the queen, uh, did nothing about questioning whether that prorogation was legitimate or constitutional at all. And she was never going to do that because her position is to do what she’s told even when what she’s told to do is unconstitutional.

Phillip Blond

Well, I think-

John Donvan

I just wanna give Phillip a chance to respond to some-

Phillip Blond

Yeah, I-

John Donvan

… some of the points you’re making ’cause you’re making several there. Go ahead, Phillip.

Phillip Blond

Yeah, I think, I think Graham’s got a very narrow and poor view of- of British history. Um, throughout British history, what we see are examples of the king siding with, uh, for instance, the peasantry. Uh, if you go into the, in- into the House of Parliament, you’ll see something called the Star Chamber, which was convened by the monarch to stop the rapacious capture of, um, of common land by the- the aristocracy. And, the peasantry and the king were allied, and often peasants in- in, um, in medieval and early modern periods got far greater justice in the royal courts than they did in the manorial courts. So, the king has always in the British settlement been allied with, um, the notion of justice.

And, indeed, if you look at the colonial expansion of Britain, countless times you have the British monarch writing to the colonists saying in- in- in America, and you can see the letters, um, from King Charles saying to the colonists that the natives or Indians, uh, are- are my citizens as well, treat them well. And you see this replicated through British history in Rhodesia where Cecil Rhodes invaded Matabele land in Australia. The- The- The express royal, um, claims were made that the natives were also subject of the monarch. So, you have throughout British history the monarchs, um, uh, trying and in some cases succeeding to exercise power for- for the general good.

Graham Smith

I find it quite extraordinary that it is argued a positive that a monarch in England might assert that they, that people in, uh, Indigenous cultures in America are subject to- (laughs) to their authority. That is not a- a good thing. Now, the- the- the notion that the monarchs are on the side of the- the little people, if you like, is perverse. I mean, they have used violence and torture, and imprisonment for centuries to, uh, impose their power. And, since James I, they were, right away through to when the slavery, uh, slavery was abolished, they were very active participants in the slave trade and made a lot of money from it, including the later, uh, the future King William standing in the Lords and arguing against it’s abolition.

But, you know, the debate now isn’t about what kings might’ve done in 1500 and something, it’s about what the monarchy does now. And now, as a democracy, we have a head of state who only does what the head of government tells them to do, and therefore it is, uh, we lack any checks and balances.

John Donvan

All right. Let- Let- Let- Let me jump in and take that point to you, Phillip. I wanna bring to you the point that Graham is making that the British monarchs and- and- and- and contemporary British monarchs are, don’t really have a great deal of impact on the democratic process, they, because they don’t have a great deal of, um, authority to- to intervene. In fact, Prince, uh, Prince, now King Charles has had to say publicly that he’s going to kind of step back from a- a role he enjoyed taking for the last, uh, 40, 50 years of commenting on public and trying to influence policy in certain areas like climate change, et cetera. And now that he’s king, he has to kind of shut up. And so, it- it seems to me that may go to Graham’s point that the monarchs don’t have much authority to exert influence in a positive way.

Phillip Blond

Yeah. Well, I think he- here I in part a- a- agree with- with Graham. I would give the monarchs much more power. Um, I, they’re far more popular than politicians. They, you know, in certain ways enjoy, y- you know, (laughs) 80 to 85% support. Graham’s belief that they don’t serve the little people isn’t an opinion shared by the little people. It’s an elite bourgeois opinion by- by people who are convinced of kind of one unreflective i-, form of ideology I think. And- And what, um, I would like to… Charles’ opinion on the environment, et cetera, have been light years ahead of others. And I would like to see them, him taking a much stronger role. And in the sense of the type of power that- that the- the monarch authorizes or uses, it’s quite hard to tell because you have to have a think about what politicians can do, um, uh, and what they can’t do. So, you have to prove a negative.

So, you have to kind of articulate what, um, aspect of- of the monarchy kind of how it shapes the whole conduct and discourse of the, of the body politic. And I think that- that it- it civilizes the body politic. It prevents the rise of very extreme forms of polarization that you can and do see in re-, um, in republics. If you think of how successfully Queen Elizabeth, um, fought a- a- against racism, to integrate, um, the, uh, the Commonwealth countries of Africa, within the Commonwealth, when she came to the throne. The- There were seven, there’s now well over, uh, um, 55, some of them not even in the Commonwealth.

So, you- you have a sense that the, what monarchs do is they orchestrate, that they do their job well and you can always have bad monarchs, is that they orchestrate, uh, a- an- a- a form of behavior and a context that helps preserve civilization. And I think [inaudible

]-

Graham Smith

No they don’t. I mean, there’s no-

Phillip Blond

… grasp the big argument-

Graham Smith

… the- there’s-

Phillip Blond

… and others can.

John Donvan

Okay. Let’s, I- I wanna, I wanna let Graham jump in on that point. Um-

Graham Smith

I mean, the- the things that Phillip is saying, you know, it’s- it’s a lot of theory, but it doesn’t reflect the reality. I mean, the idea that the queen was fighting racism when she lobbied in the ’60s and ’70s as governments were introducing laws to protect people from race discrimination in the workplace, she successively lobbied to have herself and the royal household excluded from that legislation. And, you know, the- the Commonwealth, you know, as we’ve seen recently, people are getting very angry about, uh, slavery reparations and about the history of colonialism. And, a lot of that anger is directed at the monarchy and at the royals themselves. So, this wider notion that the- the monarch somehow, uh, influences, uh, our body politic, again, it just doesn’t stack up. It’s, there’s no evidence of this.

And, you know, we are as prone as any other country to extremism and we’ve had plenty of that, uh, sort of polarization in recent years. So, is that a failure of the monarchy? No, it’s just the reality of the society that we, uh, live in. But, the monarchy fails us on many other accounts. Now, no, we have to look at the real evidence and not just make sort of, uh, generalized claims saying republics are less stable. No, they’re not. I mean, democrat, democracies and democratic republics are more stable. And if we look at, uh, oh, in Germany, for example, which has a very strong motivation to remain democratic and stable, and to, uh, see off extremists is a federal republic.

Um, and if you look at places like Iceland and Ireland, and Finland, and, you know, Austria, and, uh- uh, Portugal and all these places, they have, uh- uh, elected heads of state, whether directly or indirectly, uh, they have elected parliaments, and they are stable, and, uh, successful democracies.

John Donvan

So, Graham, what do you, what do you make of the fact though that there are other democracies in- in Western Europe? Um, Denmark and- and Norway, uh, the Netherlands have royal families and are, absolutely qualify as stable democracies. And- And, in- in- in, you know, the- the- the queen of Denmark is enormously popular and the monarchy is enormously popular there, and not seen as a challenge to the basic kind of gut understanding of what it means to be a democracy.

Graham Smith

Yeah. I mean, you know, we can see that democracies have retained, some democracies, not many, have retained monarchies. I mean, in terms of the issue of stability, where countries are stable and a monarchy has managed to survive into the late 20th century, then they’re more likely to survive because the pressures aren’t there to get them. But, I mean, the Dutch monarchy has seen a sharp fall in support over the last few years. Um, the British monarchy, I mean, I don’t know, uh, where Phillip’s getting his information, but the, John Curtice, a very well-known pollster, uh, in the UK, was just writing, uh, yesterday I think, saying that the monarchy in Britain is, uh, at an all-time low in terms of popularity. Support for the monarchy has dropped sharply over the last four years, um, and, support for abolition, uh, has increased.

Um, but, you know, all of these countries in Europe also have republican movements and also have serious questions about the nature of those monarchies, they’re just not quite so ostentatious and so, uh, obvious in their failings. But the British monarchy is particular in it’s failings, not least because of the position it has in the constitution. I mean, we- we have a situation, uh, which was, uh, termed about 50 years ago as an elective dictatorship because of the enormous that is, uh, held by Downing Street, by, um, the prime minister and, uh, their government. And, that, a lot of that comes down to the crown and the powers of the crown that have been transferred wholesale into the hands of the prime minister and their ministers.

Um, you know, and this is a significant failing, less, you know, not even getting into this- the actual failings of the institution itself. Politically and constitutionally, it does not serve us, uh, it serves the government, uh, and the prime minister of the day.

John Donvan

So- So, Phillip, I- I know that the- the core of your argument has been the degree to which the monarchy serves the British people. But, um, the king is now the king of 15, head- head of state for 15 other nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica. Um, to what degree does your argument for the value of the monarchy relate to the British monarch’s role as head of state in those other countries? Is that, is that critical to the point that you’re making?

Phillip Blond

Um, I think that what’s happening is that as societies polarize, particularly in the West, and fragment, and increasingly become conflictual that the need for, um, a politics, and- and polity that speaks to the general welfare and the general good, that is free of ideology, that is free of politics, becomes evermore pressing. And I think that what- what you see is not just that the British monarch is- is- is celebrated in the Commonwealth, but beyond. I mean, it’s remarkable the- the- the number of countries and nations that are declaring national mourning, you know, through France, uh, to Bangladesh, to Brazil. Um, all of these, all of these nations also are experiencing division.

And I think that what- what we’re seeing is- is that- that… And, I think this is the greatness of- of- of Eliz- Elizabeth who, as I said, grew the Commonwealth from, uh, just seven members to 54, incorporating most of Africa, um, in- in the process, is an attempt to create a global polity that can speak to global issues at the level and scale that’s required. And in that sense, Prince Charles, who anticipated many of the most dangerous problems that now confront us in terms of envi- environmental degradation, I think has a unique opportunity. And as I said earlier, he explicitly now sees his role as a global one to serve all nations. And I think this will only increase the power and the popularity of the monarchy because it speaks to their idealism and their romance, and they have now become significant political actors. And I think Charles will be more active, um, than his mother, and I think that that will be welcomed.

John Donvan

But, what- what does it say to you that there is a republican movement that seems to be growing in force in Australia? Or that Barbados that only last year, I think less than 10 months ago, chose no longer to have as it’s head of state the British monarch and wanted to go in a different direction? That the trend seems to be, I think the trend seems to be away from involvement by other nations with having the British crown as head of state?

Phillip Blond

It depends where you put your line on the graph, doesn’t it? Because, you- you’d have trouble saying that now. And- And, what monarchy has done is evolved into a common, in- into the Commonwealth, and we now have members of the Commonwealth who were never colonized by the British. Mozambique and Rwanda ha- have joined. And I think it will expand yet further. And so- so, I suspect that, of course, there will be republican, um, movements and they will wax, and wane. But I think that if you went back to 1900 and you spoke about the almost global popularity of the British monarchy, people would be very surprised. In terms of long [inaudible

], I don’t think globally the British monarchy has ever exercised such power, symbolic and cultural power as they do now.

[NEW_PARAGRAPH]But I think that that has changed our ask of the monarch and we now will want them to operate at this level, and to shape, um, the questions that we need to address at this global level. And they are, they are becoming, um, almost the only global figures, um, outside of religious figures, um, that can speak to the general interest. So, I think it looks very positive, um…

Graham Smith

What you’re saying does not reflect reality. Now, I mean, I’ve just been reading a book by Philip Murphy, he’s one of the leading experts on analyzing the Commonwealth. And his general conclusion is that as an institution, it’s largely pointless and it doesn’t really do an awful lot. Now, I mean, the Commonwealth which now has 56 nations, um, it is, most of those nations are republics. Um, it, despite it’s claims to support values like democracy and human rights, it, um, it seems quite happy to, uh, make room for dictators and for people who, with awful human rights records. Um, and it just a- allowed Gabon, I think it was, to join, uh, the Commonwealth, which has an awful, uh, record on these things.

Something like more than 90% of the population of the Commonwealth live in republics. Uh, the Commonwealth was not created by a monarch. It hasn’t been grown by the monarch. It hasn’t been sustained by the monarch. It is a result of inter-governmental decisions that were influenced by a host of different re-, uh, issues, not least the, uh, sweeping independence movements of the ’50s and ’60s, the post-war, um, situation that Britain found itself in, and so on. Um, but where it stands now is an institution that has very little relevance, uh, beyond it’s, um, uh, sporting, um, events that they hold every four years.

John Donvan

I’m John Donvan. This is Intelligence Squared US. We’ll hear more from our debaters right after this.

Welcome back to Intelligence Squared US. I’m John Donvan. Let’s get back to our debate. Graham, Brian mentioned with- with- with some degree of wonder the fact that the- the French are publicly mourning the queen and that Brazil issued a statement, and that Cuba issued a statement. Certainly here in the United States, the television coverage has been nonstop. And, I can tell you that no other royal, uh, period of grieving or funeral will ever get the coverage, uh, that we’re seeing for the queen. And I wanna ask you about that, ab- ab- about the po- point that I think that, um, Brian really is making is that the queen, uh, has a p-, has a, has a positive reputation globally and that, as the embodiment of the monarchy that- that- that, uh- uh, you know, comes to the, to the, to the institution as well.

And, uh, w-, y- you know, we- we all know as Americans that, um, the- the British royal family is actually a great tourist attraction, um, and that it’s a, it tells a positive story that, uh, that draws a lot of positive attention. And, I would like you to take that on and tell us what’s going on with all of that, what is that about?

:

Graham Smith

Well, in terms of countries, um, uh, declaring mourning periods and so on, you know, that is about diplomacy on the whole and it is about the fact that, uh, the queen particularly is someone who’s been around a very long time, uh, who people don’t really know, and therefore project all sorts of things, uh, onto her, and- and believe all sorts of things about the sorta person she is. And she has become a figure, um, who, uh, so-, has- has become more myth than- than- than reality (laughs), if you like. And so, you know, she does loom large in people’s imaginations. And, the, you know, that is what, part of the problem that the monarchy now faces because for most people, the queen was the monarchy, uh, and the monarchy was the queen.

That does not transfer to Charles, you know, and that won’t happen when Charles dies. Um, you know, so, but the, beyond that, you know, it isn’t true that the monarchy is good for tourism. That simply isn’t the case. There is no evidence, uh, for that whatsoever. We’ve done the research, we’ve spoken to Visit Britain, the leading tourist agency in the country. Um, it makes absolutely no difference to our economy, um, whatsoever. Um, yes, it, uh- uh, the monarchy attracts, um, media attention. Um, that is not global in, you know, it- it, certainly within the English speaking language, it, uh, countries, it, uh- uh, it gets a lot of attention, and certainly, to some extent elsewhere. But, um, it- it isn’t, uh, the global phenomenon that Phillip seems to think it is.

Um, so, you know, it- it, these things are overplayed and overstated, uh, quite widely. And, you know, for whatever, to whatever extent they are overplayed and overstated, that’s with the queen. Um, that is not gonna be replicated with Charles who people don’t know that well and have all sorts of good reasons not to respect or to like, or to look up to.

John Donvan

A- A- And Phillip, do you, do you think that, uh, King Charles may prove a liability compared to his mother?

Phillip Blond

No, I- I don’t. I- I- I just enjoying Graham’s relentlessly pessimistic and negative, uh, view that I think stands counter to everybody’s intuitions and- and reality itself. I think that the reason why republics join the Commonwealth, um, add, with the titu- titular head of state (laughs) as the monarch is because they see the deficiencies I think in- in their own polity. And, the hope is that the Commonwealth over time will exercise the type of transformation, um, uh, that we want and- and- and that people need.

Graham Smith

But, that’s not true, Phillip.

Phillip Blond

And- And, I think that also-

Graham Smith

You’re just, you’re just saying things which are not born in reality.

Phillip Blond

… Graham just is so- so desperate to- to- to impugn the monarchs that he’s saying clearly contradictory things, you know. The monarchs being, uh, the Queen Elizabeth was around for a long time, therefore people don’t know her well. I think it- it’s precisely because the queen was around for a long time when she exercised a different type of diplomacy, which is acknowledged by all the politicians who would know, but speaks to kind of her power and the type of shaping that she was trying to do. And I think it’s very clear that the- the qu- queen was instrumental in growing the Commonwealth. Nobody who’s involved, uh, with the Commonwealth would- would- would think otherwise.

So, I think that- that on the posi-, the positive side o- of- of the copy book, if you will, is very strong and very evident. And, the popular support is there. I suspect Charles will be more successful than people imagine, quite simply because he will be an idealistic and romantic non-partisan voice for what most people think. And I think he will help to restore the notion of consensus to other polities where it’s sadly absent.

John Donvan

Graham, imagine for me and for all of us what Britain will look like without a monarchy.

Graham Smith

Well, it, you know, what the proposition is, which has been proven to work many times, uh, elsewhere, is a parliamentary democracy which is stronger and more democratic, and more accountable, where you ha-, you still have a prime minister, you still have two houses of parliament, although you- you would get rid of the House of Lords, which is a whole other, um, farce. And, you would have a fully elected parliament, um, in which the people could be properly represented. And, you would have a constitution which limits the power of parliament and government. And you would have an elected head of state, uh, who would not be running the government or making political decisions, but would play that symbolic role.

John Donvan

What- What would you, what would you call that head of state? Would- Would you have a president?

Graham Smith

Yes, president. I mean, that- that is, this is the common terminology. I mean, we- we, if you see the presidents of Ireland, for example, uh, they have been exemplary. The, Michael D. Higgins is a fantastic head of state. Um, Michael, uh, Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson before him were both hugely popular. And their poll ratings are right up there alongside the queen’s. Um, Charles’, of course, is far lower than the queen’s as we’ve seen, uh, just today. Um, the presidents of Iceland has been exceptional as well. Uh, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first woman ever to be elected a head of state in the world in 1980, um, enjoyed a long period in office, uh, in Iceland. We also have excellent heads of state, um, in Germany, in Finland, and elsewhere.

And, you know, these people are elected. Um, they serve a limited term, usually a limit of two terms, um, but their term lengths can vary from four to seven, uh, years. Um, and, they have some limited constitutional power, so they can actually act as a check and balance, uh, to guard the constitution and to defend the country against politicians who may wish to breach the constitution.

John Donvan

Uh, Phillip, I’d like to ask you the same question. What- What would Britain be without a monarchy?

Phillip Blond

It would be denuded of it’s specific gift, uh, to the world, which is I think, um, as George Orwell, a shared and embodied notion of, uh, of common decency. It would be stripped of the ability to foster consensus and so secure, um, the democratic polity, and- and extend equity, uh, to all. Um, we know that we’re in a democratic recession. Democracies are receding across the globe. Democracy by itself is not enough to sustain democracy. And one of the reason is is that there’s no figure head for the formulation of a common good. There’s no figure head, uh, in these polities, um, that can actually help foster the type of communal reverence and enjoyment, and celebration that a monarch can. And monarchs I think in a constitutional settlement, um, demonstrate that they can help secure democracy against the passers and enforcers.

Stripping the monarchy away from Britain would be like stripping, uh, one of the great sort of lights of the democratic world of a key part of what has defended, uh, that democratic world. It will make Britain a more dangerous politics and a more dangerous polity because nothing more- more dangerous than a democracy without- without, um, direction from a- a more shared communal sense of values, as contemporary America makes, uh, explicitly clear.

Graham Smith

Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the democratic world. We have one of the most dysfunctional and, uh, centralized, uh, constitutions in the world, which make, gives us one of the most powerful, uh, and unchecked governments in the world. Um, the idea that democracy is somehow, uh, sliding backwards because there aren’t monarchs around- a- around is, uh, utterly bizarre and it- it just- just isn’t, um, again, attached to any, at all, to reality. You know, the- the monarchy is the institution that, um, that centralizes power that enables the politicians to do whatever they like with very few checks and balances, uh, in place.

And, the monarchy itself as an institution, you know, the idea that it is somehow noble and gifted, or, uh, equitable, or anything like that, I mean, this is an institution that demands secrecy, deference. It demands public money to be spent on themselves. It protects someone like Prince Andrew, who is facing serious accusations. Um, it allows someone like Charles to receive huge bags of, uh, you know, three million euros in cash from someone who has allegedly had connections with Al-Qaeda. It, uh, protect him from proper police investigation when there was evidence that he was trading honors for donations.

You know, this is not a good institution of good people. And, we can all dream up fantasies about, you know, some benign, uh, monarch guiding us all in s-, a- a- as if we were all children needing guiding. Um, but, the people and cultures, and, uh, politics, uh, flourishes when we are free to make our own decisions, stand on our own two feet, and to control our own institutions, and have those institutions represent the values to which we actually believe in, um, and not to be, uh, patronized by this weird, uh, futile institution which is only there to support power, uh, of the few.

John Donvan

Graham, did you, did you have a time in your life, maybe childhood or later, when you were supportive of the monarchy and excited by them? And, did you have a kind of, um, you know, Saul on the road to Damascus conversion point?

Graham Smith

No, I’ve always looked at it and thought it’s absurd. I mean, I came from, I took an interest in politics as a teenager and I always thought it was absurd then. Um, I mean, on a very basic level, I remember just thinking, well, you know, why- why would we do that when we can just allow people to choose someone? And, the older I got, I looked at, um, the institution, I looked at what other people do. Um, I mean, if you look at what we’ve just gone through with the accession where Charles just, without any concern, without any discussion or debate, um, we, he just takes the job, for no reason. He’s not qualified for it. Uh, he, you know, this idea that he’s, um, uh, unifying or non-partisan, I mean, his environmentalism is built on, uh, a mountain of hypocrisy and eccentric ideas.

Um, that he just took that role, uh, believing that he- he was owed it because his mother had it, you look back to the last presidential election in Ireland in 2011. They had a number of candidates. More than one of them was eminent- eminently suitable to be president. The Irish people had an opportunity to discuss what sorta country they were and how they wanted that represented-

John Donvan

So- So-

Graham Smith

… um-

John Donvan

… So, but let me-

Graham Smith

… quite separately from the government [inaudible

]-

John Donvan

… let me break in, you’re- you’re saying, you’re saying that- that crin-, King Charles was undeserving, that this was a- a gross act of, uh, nepotism if anything. And I- I wanna take that, uh, back to Phillip, the- the notion that, uh, because it’s hereditary, um, King Charles had to do nothing but keep breathing to get this role and that he doesn’t actually deserve it. I don’t know how widespread in opinion that is in the UK, but I’d like you to take on the question, uh, Phillip.

Phillip Blond

Yeah. I mean, Graham has a touching faith, um, in empty formalism when the reality is that democracy, since indexes, um, the Bertelsmann, uh, Transformation Index has, uh, has shown the worst results this last year for democracy. Democracies are failing across the globe. And they normally fail, um- um, because of a fragmentation, internal values or actual civil war, where people can’t foster, um, common good, and then one side or the other takes over, and essentially suspends the other side, and suspends democracy. Why I think the hereditary principle is also a legitimate principle, I mean, let’s try and apply this to children. Why should children, um, be looked after by their parents if it’s just an accident of birth? Let’s take children from their parents and ensure equity of treatment in special children’s camps. And then, that of course is the ideology of communism, uh, and-

Graham Smith

I mean, this is getting into weird realms now, Phillip. I mean-

John Donvan

But, I- I- I think, I think what Graham is saying is that being the- the- the- the queen’s son does not qualify. It- It certifies him for the role, but does not qualify for- for the role of leadership.

Phillip Blond

Well, I think it does qualify him because what we have is a different account of formation and performance. What we have is the idea that there is a station you will occupy and that station disciplines, and shapes people such that they can perform their duties. And what’s interesting is so powerful is that station that- that, generally speaking, we’ve been very lucky with our monarchs. And it’s just like with our unwritten constitution. What’s, a written constitution doesn’t guarantee you anything. In fact, written constitutions normally don’t work. They could be subverted. So, you weren’t able in- in America, I’m not taking a position on this, to kind of remove Donald Trump. But, in Britain’s unwritten constitution, they were able to remove Boris Johnson. Far more effective than, uh, than the formal is the informal, which is based upon, um, character, tradition, and notions of how one ought to- to behave.

And I think that being shaped by, um, by a position is also a form of legitimacy. And, if we abandon that, what we essentially abandon is the idea that- that- that power, people who inherit wealth, uh, position, uh, which is what dictates most outcomes now are actually free of any obligations or honor, or culture for how they ought to behave. And, one of the reasons that inequality has become so rampant in our societies is we’ve freed, um, the wealthy from any obligations of honor that come from their station as being wealthy. What we really should do is expand the notion that adheres to hereditary principle to other outcomes that- that also derive from a similar principle, like inherited wealth, and reintroduce the notion of responsibility, and duty.

And I think that’s what people responded to Queen Elizabeth, um, so strongly, uh, for was her notion of service and actually the notion of service is incumbent upon many positions in our society, the Army and the armed services being but one example. And this does wonders for human beings. So, the very last thing we want to do is remove the idea that- that your station can shape you.

John Donvan

All right. Not surprisingly, the two of you disagree up to the end. But I wanna thank you both for taking part in the conversation and doing so, um, respectfully and civilly. So, um, Phillip Blond and Graham Smith, thank you so much for joining us at Intelligence Squared.

Phillip Blond

Thank you.

Graham Smith

Thank you.

John Donvan

And the conversation, uh, you just heard, everybody, perfectly captures why we do this. You- You know the- the way that discourse is taking place in our culture these days is pretty broken and that’s why it’s so unusual, but also refreshing to hear two people who disagree actually be able to have a rational and civil conversation that sheds light. And we know from so many of you, that’s exactly why you listen to our debates and why I would like to remind you that as you turn to us for that, we turn to you for support.

[NEW_PARAGRAPH]We’re a non-profit and it’s contributions from listeners like you that keep us going. So, please consider sending us a buck or two, or $10, or $50, whatever works, and that’ll give you a stake in what we’re doing here every week, and it means we’ll be here every week, this week, next week, and beyond. Thank you everybody for listening. I’m John Donvan and we’ll see you next time.

Thank you for tuning into this episode of Intelligence Squared, made possible by a generous grant from the Laura and Gary Lauder Venture Philanthropy Fund. As a non-profit, our work to combat extreme polarization through civil and respectful debate is generously funded by listeners like you, the Rosenkranz Foundation, and friends of Intelligence Squared. Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman, Clea Conner is CEO, David Ariosto is head of editorial. Julia Melfi, Shea O’Meara, and Marlette Sandoval are our producers. Damon Whittemore is our radio producer. And I’m your host, John Donvan. We’ll see you next time.