26.07.2000

Abolish the monarchy

The orgy of patriotic pomp surrounding the celebrations of the queen mother's 100th birthday has once again made crystal clear the role of the United Kingdom constitutional monarchy in ensuring stability for the British state and British capital.

For ruling class ideology the monarchy symbolises the unity of the British people - a unity that supposedly rises above all divisions, not least those of class. While in times of industrial unrest worker is pitted against employer, and while William Hague and Tony Blair may regularly exchange insults across the floor of the House of Commons, these expressions of different interests are after all of only minor importance - compared to our underlying common interest as members of an imagined British family. That, at least, is what we are led to believe.

So, despite Tony Blair's programme of constitutional 'modernisation' - reform of the House of Lords, devolution for Scotland and Wales, the hoped for settlement in Northern Ireland, a London assembly, proportional representation, etc - there is one institution that is to remain largely untouched, and that is the monarchy itself. Of course, after its crisis in 1998 following the death of Diana Spencer, when the queen and the rest of the parasitic crew were widely seen as out of touch, efforts have been made to combat the perceived remoteness of the monarchy.

Unfortunately for the ruling class a series of scandals concerning the private lives of individual royals has dented its image over recent years. That is why the fact that Elizabeth Windsor senior has survived to the end of her 100th year is a godsend. More than any other member, apart from the queen herself, she has been promoted as beyond reproach, an almost saintly figure who simply oozes beneficence.

As Charles Spencer The Daily Telegraph's theatre critic, who was (aptly) chosen to describe the events, commented, "In these difficult days for the royal family, almost everyone still loves the queen mum. And even those who take a disapproving line on the royal family in general could hardly object to a party for a woman who is about to notch up her 100th birthday after an adult lifetime devoted to smiling, uncomplaining and remarkably uncontroversial public service" (July 20).

So the establishment, duly backed up by a fawning press, TV and radio, has been determined to make the most of its good fortune. The celebrations are spread out over three weeks, beginning with the mass on July 11 at St Paul's cathedral. This was followed by the bizarre pageant at Horse Guards Parade on July 19 and is set to culminate on August 4, the queen mother's actual birthday, with a parade from her humble abode - Clarence House - to her daughter's place at the end of The Mall.

The pageant itself was a strange mixture of kitsch and sentimental chauvinism. A populist 'century in six minutes' was portrayed - from the suffragettes and Lawrence of Arabia to the 1966 World Cup - which included corgis and camels while a Lancaster bomber flew overhead. But that did not prevent the papers from waxing lyrical - they talked of a "most memorable occasion" that was entirely fitting to mark a "century of duty".

Elements of the press made much of the fact that dissident Irish republicans had placed a small bomb next to the main railway line in Ealing on the same morning, but of course the queen mother braved the 'threats' in order not to disappoint the loyal, admiring population.

Similarly she is said to be determined to 'defy' a demonstration planned by the anarchist Movement Against the Monarchy. The MAM website announced: "Next big event in all you royal lovers' diaries is Friday August 4 2000, 3pm. Queen mum's birthday bash at Clarence House. Hell, if we're paying for it we might as well be there." Veteran actor Sir John Mills, who was one of those to honour the pageant with his presence, commented that his idol would not be deterred: "The queen mother has proved many times in the past, especially during the blitz, that she knows the meaning of the word 'courage'."

The Daily Telegraph editorial summed up the significance of the queen mother's role in shoring up the monarchy and therefore strengthening the whole constitutional monarchy system and the rule of capital itself: "Throughout her public life she has been an uncontentious focus for loyalty for the people of this country and the Commonwealth. Time has increased, rather than diminished, her importance as a unifying factor. For as society has become increasingly fissiparous, the public craves fixed points in the compass all the more . Today, at least, we are a nation once again" (July 20).

Why is it then, in view of the centrality of the monarchy in the eyes of the ruling class itself, that the left, for the most part, considers the institution to be of minor importance? For example, Sean Matgamna, a leading member of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, could not for the life of him grasp the views of revolutionary republicans at a meeting in central London earlier this week. The meeting, organised by the Republican Communist Network, was also addressed by comrades from the CPGB and the Revolutionary Democratic Group.

Comrade Matgamna conceded that the abolition of the monarchy was "a good idea", but it was not a "central issue" of any use in mobilising the working class, he said. Repeating his previous statements to the effect that there was "no mileage" for revolutionaries in republicanism, he added that the ending of the monarchy would merely be "a by-product of the mobilisation of the working class" and would constitute just "a small part of the workers' revolution". The institution was "nothing but decoration" and was "not essential to capitalism".

Comrade Matgamna emphasised once again the primacy in the eyes of much of the left of trade union-type demands. Mobilising workers in the trade union sense, he said, encourages them to "flex their muscles". Yes, he too felt outrage at the complete negation of democracy which the monarchy enshrines, but there are, he went on, many other - by implication much more serious - anti-democratic outrages: the example he gave was the denial of proper healthcare to the working class.

In short comrade Matgamna just could not understand this "fetish" with the monarchy. To demand a republic was to remain "within the confines of bourgeois politics". After all there are prominent bourgeois figures, such as Rupert Murdoch, who also echo the call. If you are going to demand a republic, then why not a workers' republic?

All of this was a fine example of an almost chemically pure economism - the kind embraced by almost the entire revolutionary left: on the one hand you encourage and tail workers' spontaneous actions in defence of their economic interests; on the other hand you make the completely abstract call for 'socialism' or a 'workers' republic'. Where is the bridge between present struggles and the future revolution?

That bridge can only come from high politics and democracy, from focusing the attention of workers on the question of the state itself, on how we are ruled. The ruling class itself spares no effort on this matter. It is true that a minority of radical bourgeois liberals are in favour of what they claim is a more rational and consistent system of bourgeois democracy. For these Charter 88 types an elected president could largely fulfil the role of the monarch, while the workings of government could continue much as before. However, for the overwhelming majority of the bourgeoisie the constitutional monarchy system is a treasure to be defended and cynically venerated.

Dave Craig of the RDG maintained at the London RCN meeting that the anti-democratic hereditary monarchy is the "weak point" of their system. That is where we should aim our blows. CPGB comrades described the royal charade as "a gift" - the monarchy was impossible to defend by any normal standards of democracy.

We do not give the demand for a republic prominence in our minimum programme because we have some 'stageist', Menshevik vision of revolution. Still less because we want to 'complete the bourgeois democratic revolution', as some of our critics absurdly allege. We want workers to arrive at the point where the demand for a workers' republic can be taken from the sphere of abstract propaganda and placed on the immediate agenda. For that to happen, it is essential that our class becomes the most consistent advocate of democracy. If, as at present, it is indifferent to or even supports the existence of the monarchy, if it accepts its own status as 'subjects of the realm', then how can it fight in the here and now to become a new ruling class?