Читайте также:
|
For many decades in Great Britain the question of the Head of State remained taboo, despite other sweeping constitutional reforms. The situation seems to be totally different these days. Queen Elizabeth II told Parliament in her Golden Jubilee address (2002), that the monarchy needed to adapt to modern realities. On the government level a special commission, The Fabian Society, has been formed to help the monarchy meet the social and political needs of modern Britain. The work of the commission is aimed at the whole series of far-reaching changes. The panel is taking a serious and objective look at the whole subject and focuses on the constitutional role of the monarch in the state. Michael Jacobs, general secretary of The Fabian Society emphasizes: "We've had a lot of constitutional reform and we need to make sure the Head of State is part of that process?"
However it is very important to reveal the Prime minister's view on an elected Head of State. In Britain the Prime Minister is technically appointed by the Monarch. But in fact it is already a person with huge political authority - the head of the party which has won the majority of seats in Parliament as a result of the General Election. It is the Prime Minister, who forms the Government and the Cabinet.
In theory, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a primus inter pares (first among equals) in the British Cabinet. However, in practice, a strong Prime Minister can so dominate government that he becomes a 'semi-president', and fulfils the leadership role in a country in the same way as presidents do. Examples include William Gladstone, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and of course - Tony Blair. It's interesting to note that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister is also a committed monarchist and he has resisted all calls for a review of the institution. But a large number of government ministers have republican sentiments and they are ready to speak out. Some of them urge for complete abolition of monarchy. Some Americans hold the same opinion. For example, they regard monarchy as an archaic and worthless institution.
In my opinion the main issue is that all politicians seek to gain more and more power. It concerns not only Britain, but the whole world. Why is Tony Blair a committed monarchist? As a Prime Minister he enjoys much power, because real powers of the monarch are restricted and mainly symbolic. It suits him since he is not sure that he will become a President if the country changes its form of government. That's why Tony Blair's policy is very severe and bizarre. So, should he enjoy constitutional powers as a president? Should he become one? It's unclear.
Moreover in model presidential republics such as the USA the President has much more powers and prerogatives than the monarch in Britain. I mean not only formal powers, but also the real ones. Therefore many ministers are in favour of the republic since they seek to gain all political power rather than act in the interest of the nation. As for the public sentiment, most of the people support monarchy, because it is the real symbol of national unity, a part of the tradition. In fact common people want to become wealthier and they don't care who should be the Head of State.
Дата добавления: 2015-09-11; просмотров: 155 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |