Constitutional monarchy is essential while absolute monarchy is hazardous, since it creates dictators, financial corruption and abuse of power.
ZOMBA, Malawi – Today Queen Elizabeth II became the longest reigning in Britain’s dynasty. Monarchy seems to be ill-perceived in some countries but to my understanding it is not bad – it’s the type of monarchy that matters.
On the other hand, constitutional monarchy is vital in society since it is bound to a national constitution, and people have a say in the running of the government.
The royal dynasty has limited powers, but the queen acts as a unifying umbrella. In the British monarchy, which is also a constitutional monarchy, Queen Elizabeth plays a big role in uniting the people.
If there were many constitutional monarchies in the world, the issue of power struggle could have been a bit different. Many people have lost their lives due to poor delegation of powers, or wars they did not want.
Under the British system, only the monarch has the power to declare war, so it takes cooperation with the nation’s prime minister and possibly also opposition leaders to get to that point. That helps Britain stay peaceful.
It is different in other types of governance. If a presidential candidate, for instance, contests election results and fails to accept defeat, it can toss a nation into conflict and then people stand a chance to be abused by war.
Compared to that kind of national chaos, constitutional monarchies are more civilized.
Queen Elizabeth plays a big role in preserving peace and acts as a control on rivaling political party leaders’ ability to affect innocent people, making her presence a kind of guarantee of human security to people of the United Kingdom.
David Joseph Kapito is a Junior Reporter for Youth Journalism International.
Your tax-deductible contribution can help support David
and other students at this nonprofit at: