Back in June, New Zealand Herald columnist Brian Rudman made the case for a New Zealand republic based on the recent transition that Nepal has made from a monarchy to a federal republic. We wrote the the Herald at the time pointing out that the conditions that existed in Nepal were in stark contrast to that of New Zealand.
Nepal was locked in a violent civil war between Maoist and Royal forces, prior to becoming a republic. Luckily the republic itself came about due to a parliamentary vote, from an assembly created for the purpose of drafting a new constitution, rather than the usual communist style of shooting the Royal family, plunging the country into chaos and executing the counter-revolutionaries while on the road to socialist utopia. Instead, Nepal's Maoists put down their weapons and took the fight to the ballot box.
The abolition of the monarchy was widely supported by the Maoists and mainstream parties, due to the former King's attempts to take back full control of the Nepalese government. The King created the conditions for the monarchy's abolition.
Professor Noel Cox, in the recent edition of Monarchy New Zealand (PDF), sees the situation differently. At once he acknowledges that the King is at fault for intervening in politics and failing to stop the Maoists uprising. Professor Cox then goes on to state that the Nepalese monarchy was the only thing that could stop the Maoists. This is the same absurd argument that the Queen is apolitical and "above politics" yet can rescue democracy by getting involved in politics, should the need ever arise.
The truth of the matter is that whenever a country faces a determined armed uprising, whether that country is a republic or monarchy becomes irrelevant. It becomes a question of whether the uprising is supported or not by the populace. The recent election results show the Nepalese people, particularily the rural poor, support the Maoists. That the Nepalese monarchy was tainted in trying to fight the Maoists was inevitable. Had they succeeded in overthrowing the government by force, they would've got rid of the monarchy anyway. At least the former King is now able to live out his life in exile.
I'd also point out that, whilst monarchies in developed states (Europe, Japan and the Commonwealth) are kept under reasonable democratic control, their very existance is a bad example to developing nations.
If Britain wants to finance jet planes and palaces for its monarchy, then it can well afford to do so. Countries like Nepal or Tonga cannot afford these sort of luxuries, but do anyway and can point to the "western" monarchs for justification.
Which is a good practical argument against monarchy.
Interesting, I've never thought of it like that.