Different Strokes for Different Folks

Both systems have pros and cons. While a good monarch with an ear to the ground can be an invaluable neutral voice, a president in a constitutional democracy can act as an advisor and a ceremonial head

- Shaan Katari Libby

WITH the death of UK’s Prince Philip, the Queen’s faithful consort, and the subsequent outpouring of condolences from the British public, one thing became obvious. With the death of the Prince, often the subject of controversy and humour, it became apparent that monarchies do continue to have a place in people’s hearts.

As someone who is married to an Englishman, I observed that my in-laws always kept track of the Royals’ lives, and were even invited to the Queen’s Tea Party one year. Although not Royalists by any stretch of the imagination, they were not against them either. They were just woven into the fabric and an accepted part of existence. More recently, most of us relived Queen Elizabeth II’s life in the film, The Queen, and rightly or wrongly, we all have an opinion on the role of the monarch vis-a-vis that of a president in a democracy.

What then is the actual difference between a monarchy and a democracy? The traditional answer to this is that the former is purely hereditary and the latter is elected by the people, hence representative. Monarchies have entitled royals, who are above all others, while democracy is meant to have everyone equal, even those who represent us. Democracies can be direct or representative. Monarchies can broadly speaking, be absolute or constitutional. Absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia are very different from Constitutional monarchies where the monarch is a figurehead.