Why should we muck about with the head of state role, when nothing is obviously broken? Put aside for a moment the need for a working counterpart to the executive and the sheer grossness and paganism of worshipping a family for its ancestry. We have to face the fact that the royal family’s future hangs on a thread.
In the past the royals were far worse behaved and far better sheltered than now. For all her offspring’s divorces, the present Queen must be credited for producing the best-behaved generation in royal history. Look back over previous male Windsors. Edward VII was globally renowned for his gluttony and concupiscence. His eldest son, Prince Albert Victor, narrowly escaped being caught up in the Cleveland Street male brothel scandal. He was described as having languid eyes and preposterous moustaches – and even rumoured to be Jack the Ripper. George V’s sons fared little better. Edward held robust rightist views to the extent of going to meet Hitler.
The modern age holds people to far stricter standards of behaviour than the past. Levels of scrutiny are impossibly higher; cruelty and mockery is endemic. The idealisation of members of the royal family is only ever a step away from hatred. The royal family, like any other family, simply cannot survive this game of genetic Russian roulette forever. It is really only a matter of time before a crisis destroys the monarchy. Increasingly, too, supporters of the hereditary system will have to account for the naked cruelty of placing individuals who have not chosen public life under the grill for their whole existence. Think of George VI – would the modern age have treated his stammering so kindly? Think of Prince John (another son of George V) locked away because of his learning difficulties. At least reality TV stars sign up for the treatment they get.
So who instead?
Our constitution is a dynamic one. It is based on the complete sovereignty of the House of Commons, mediated through certain ways of working. Any solution that tried to add a static element, a separate source of power or a written constitution would have revolutionary and unforeseen consequences. It would be like adding another horse to a carriage – but one facing the other way. We should embrace the simplest solution – Occam’s razor must be wielded savagely. The very simplest solution is to put the House of Commons itself at the head of the state, with the person of the Speaker performing most roles. This puts a working separation of powers within the Commons itself, the only meaningful place it can be put without a constitutional revolution.
Right now the acting head of state is Mr Tony Blair. He uses the powers of appointment, treaty making, dissolving parliament and royal prerogative. It is right that the elected government should continue to have the most sway over these issues. However, it is also right that all of these processes should be debated, scrutinised and recorded in the House of Commons. Shifting the Queen’s powers to the Commons ensures both that the government can still prosecute radical policies, without constitutional gridlock, and that the Commons is replaced at the very centre of our national life.
The constitutional changes are therefore quite marginal but would have a tonic effect on openness and accountability. The real change is in our perception of what our state means.
It would still be an historic state. The history of the Speaker is almost as old as parliament itself. Those who support the monarchy usually talk about wanting to keep the magic of history alive in our national life. Well, most of the monarch’s ceremonies and equipage are Victorian. The Speaker’s mace, and daily procession, the coach, the cry of ‘order’ are all at least as old, as fusty and as splendid as the monarch’s. Its history is as sensational and gory as any royal house. We know for example, of at least seven office holders who have been executed – two on the same day in 1502 – usually for telling the monarch that they can’t have any more taxes. There is one very important distinction, though: anyone can be speaker. It is a post all can aspire to.
States honour their citizens across the world. Republican France has its Legion d’Honneur. The United States has its own medals. It is vital that the state continues to honour bravery, invention and distinction. What is strange is that an essentially meritocratic system is stuck within a feudal straitjacket. The current speaker is a former welder. The previous one was a Tiller girl, and her predecessor a tailor. This position is genuinely open posted. It is not impossible to have black, Asian or Celtic occupants. In fact, people of any ethnicity broader than the House of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha. Surely it is more fitting for achievement to recognise achievement? The honours system could be moved wholesale over to the Speaker – the only significant change would be closer scrutiny of its awards. Michael Howard briefly deviated into sense when he talked about the ‘British Dream’ – that people could rise to high position from humble origins. Is it too hopelessly old-fashioned to say that putting this vision at the heart of our state pageantry is better for the nation’s soul than the present fawning and scrapping?
Moreover, recent speakers have succeeded in establishing themselves in the national consciousness. They are widely respected as being democratic figures without being partisan. Michael Martin, the 156th Speaker, has had the usual rough ride from his colleagues and the press. It takes a while for backbenchers to stop looking like they are wearing fancy dress and to assume the gravity of their position. But it happens. It has been a cheery sight to see Michael Martin move from self-doubt to confidence. At the beginning he had the unfortunate catch phrase ‘don’t tell me how to do my job’, repeated with some desperation many times. That is all gone now, he is fully in command of the chamber now: ‘Mr Mackay, do not tell me how to do my job. You would not know where to start.’ He has the copacetic air of a silvery puffin. Would not his soft, muttering burr better suit the delicate post prandial Christmas sensibility than pointy crystalline vowels and harsh consonants of the Queen’s antique RP?
Putting the Speaker at the head of our state would perform vital functions. It would honour our oldest and best tradition, our true contribution to the world, the development of a modern meritocratic democracy. It would also celebrate the best of the House of Commons, perhaps even restoring some respect and interest in it. Speaker as head of state? After all, if the title was good enough for Montezuma when he reigned over the Aztec empire, maybe it will do for us.