22.08.1996

No middle way

Republicanism and democracy

Back on the front pages again is the monarchy. No surprise there, of course. The bourgeois press, especially the tabloids, would probably go out of business without the royalty to feed off. We all love scandals about the royals, don’t we?

However, this time round some of the newspaper headlines are almost enough to quicken the pulse of any republican - “A monarchy in trouble”, “The royal revolution”, “Survival plan for monarchy”, “Hard-pressed royalty” and suchlike. Such imagery suggests that the Windsors are in trouble, under sniper fire from all manner of subversives and dangerous radicals.

Unfortunately, this is not really the case. Republicanism, even of the most modest kind, is hardly visible on the British political horizon in a practical sense. All the talk has revolved around the idea of ‘reforming’ the monarchy, so it can step boldly into the next millennium. More pointedly, it has been the palace itself which has initiated the ‘debate’ - specifically in the shape of the Way Ahead Group, staffed by obscure dignitaries such as The Earl of Arlie and Sir Robert Fellowes, both ‘trained’ at Eton and the Scots Guards.

Naturally, this top-down process is being carefully stage-managed, in the hope that it will be channelled along eminently safe and sensible lines. As the Evening Standard put it, “It will be thoroughly sensible if some new thinking is seen to start from the queen, rather than forced upon her by politicians” (my emphasis, August 19) - or by political events, of course.

We can see, though, that the ruling class - and the establishment in general - is permanently scared by the spectre of republicanism. There is always the terrifying possibility that any ‘reform’ of the royals will develop a republican momentum and upset the (UK-state) apple cart. In other words, our rulers instinctively recognise that the battle for democracy, and genuine democratic reforms, poses a threat to their position in society - happily entrenched as they are by hundreds of years of obscene class privilege.

Therefore, it is absolutely incumbent upon serious revolutionaries to raise the banner of republicanism in this period. When the class begins to stir it has the potential to attract relatively large number of militant workers, progressives and all those who can be classified as democrats - far more so than abstract leftist propaganda.

One of the reasons for this is that pro-republican sentiment immediately places us on a collision course with the Labour Party, and liberal opinion in general. The Labour Party and The Guardian want to put a brake on any movement that fights to extend democracy. We, on the other hand, want to let the democratic brakes go and watch the juggernaut smash into the anti-democratic structures of the British state.

Clem Attlee once remarked that any Labour MP who expressed republican views must be “a lightweight” - ie, such a person would never be able to climb to the top of the greasy Labourite pole. The current controversy reveals that the Labour Party is extremely “light-weight” when it comes to the question of democracy.

The Fabian Society recently published a thoroughly mealy-mouthed and craven document, entitled Long to reign over us? Naturally, given the nature of its authors, the document did not call for the abolition of the monarchy, immediate or otherwise. Incredibly, it even suggested that there be a referendum on the issue every 10 years (even after the monarchy has been abolished?), that we should get a new national anthem and trim back a bit on the hangers-on.

Not exactly revolutionary stuff.

Yet the roof almost fell in on the unfortunate authors of Long to reign over us? As soon as Michael Portillo started to thunder about the potentially catastrophic consequences of “tampering with the monarchy”, the Blairites immediately scuttled into TV studios across the land to disassociate themselves from such repugnant views. Frank Dobson, who not that long ago was regarded as a bit of a lefty, was assigned the job of reassuring the nation that his leader (conveniently on holiday) is a staunch royalist and that there would be no ‘reform’ of the monarchy under a Labour government.

The comedian and wag Jeremy Hardy aptly sums up the supine and treacherous nature of the Labour Party, when he reminds us that “Labour politicians have always had some funny ideas about what socialism means. For example, Tony Blair was not the first to alight upon the notion that it means unrestricted capitalism” (The Guardian, August 12). After all, who can forget the immortal words of the late Labour Lord, George Brown: “What’s so unsocialist about a monarchy?”

The ‘fundamental reforms’ being proposed by the Way Ahead Group are a joke. They include allowing the first-born child of a sovereign to succeed regardless of sex - at present it is the first male, determined by the law of primogeniture which dates back to the 11th century - and the monarch to marry a catholic, which the 1701 Act of Settlement prevents. There is even tentative talk of abolishing the £8.7 million Civil List, leaving the royals to ‘survive’ on the income from their vast estates - which comes to a tad more than £8.7 million a year.

Any genuine democrat would contemptuously reject such sops, which leave the ‘democratic deficit’ glaringly in place. An editorial in The Guardian gave more or less tacit approval to the reforms, especially those proposed by the Fabian Society, solemnly intoning:

“Yet reform need not necessarily lead to republicanism. The Fabians pointed to a middle way ... leaving the queen as a ceremonial monarch in a democratic country. There are a 1,000 years of history - and large royal estate incomes - at stake” (August 20).

The Guardian is absolutely right.

Yes, “reform need not necessarily lead to republicanism” - quite the opposite. But it is the job of revolutionaries to ensure that the campaign for democratic rights goes down the republican road. If not, ‘reforms’ will only serve the cause of reaction.

There is no “middle way” between democracy and the monarchy. There is either a republic or the status quo and continued capitalist rule.

Paul Greenaway