Monarchist "facts" are fictions

The Monarchist League has a page called "Just the facts". The problem is there aren't many facts on the page. Here we go through them one by one:

Monarchies are much more stable and far more successful at protecting democracy than republics.

This "fact" is a fiction: of the top 25 most democratic countries in the world, 13 of them are republics. In addition, almost all of the longest established democracies in the world are republics - for example, the United States, Switzerland and San Marino. Most monarchies only became more democratic with the emergence of republics, following the American and French revolutions - the Reform Act 1832, the seminal enactment which created a real liberal democracy in Britain - was directly influenced by the French revolution.

It is true that there are many unstable republics around the world. However, there are also plenty of unstable and undemocratic monarchies - albeit not so many left these days.In most of the unstable republics and monarchies, there is often a basic social and political infrastructure missing, which has nothing to do with the country's political structure.

New Zealand's monarchy has a team of three people working at the top level of government, not just the usual one or two.

This "fact" is another fiction. For starters, there is a clear division between the three offices of Sovereign, Governor-General and Prime Minister. The Queen and Governor-General constitute New Zealand's head of state, while the Prime Minister is head of government.

The Queen does not "work" at the top level of New Zealand's government. The Queen's own website states on Her Majesty's duties: "There are inward duties, with The Queen playing a part in State functions in Britain. Parliament must be opened, Orders in Council have to be approved, Acts of Parliament must be signed, and meetings with the Prime Minister must be held. There are also outward duties of State, when The Queen represents Britain to the rest of the world."

All of the work of head of State in New Zealand is undertaken by the Governor-General. He or she represents New Zealand to the world, signs our Bills and regulations into law and undertakes other ceremonial functions. The Queen only becomes Queen of New Zealand when she visits, at which time the monarch often takes on the duties of the Governor-General - in other words, the Governor-General doesn't work when the Queen's around.

Monarchies select their heads of state based on a fair and neutral process, not based on personal popularity, wealth, or through political scheming.

This fact is a total fiction. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, Catholics are excluded from the throne. That fact alone means that hereditary birth is not fair or neutral. Then there is the exclusion of females where there are older males in the Royal family - the Act of Settlement continues this ancient, pointless law. The idea that selecting a head of state by birth itself is not fair, or neutral. So long as everyone else who is born is excluded, there is nothing fair about one child being selected above all others just because they were born into the right family.

Democracy is based on the concept of political equality; that is, any child, irrespective of their birth, is politically equal and able to participate at all levels of government. Now, the monarchists spurn the idea of political equality, focusing on the problems of electing representatives - they're all ultra-wealthy, immoral schemers don't you know. The problem is that, more often than not, politicians succeed when they're not popular but their party  or policies are (Jim Bolger in 1993 for example). Many who are not personally wealthy succeed - and those that are wealthy do too.

Monarchies are more gender balanced, multi-cultural, and inclusive than republics.

This fact nonsense, but to be fair it is only partly fictional. It is true that Governors-General within the Commonwealth are often from diverse ethnic backgrounds. However, this masks the reality that the Royal family is a culturally exclusive institution, based on primogeniture (that is, males first). This means that for all the diversity of culture and gender at the Governor-General level, the constitutional apex is still held by a family of exclusively English extraction.

However, the accusation against republics being non-multicultural or somehow less diverse than monarchies is simply not fact. Of the Republic of Ireland's 8 presidents, two have been women, two have been protestants and one has come from Northern Ireland. India, a country with a number of deep religious and social divisions, currently has a female President, and has previously had three Muslims, and a Sikh President. Despite what the monarchists say, republics are culturally inclusive. The issue is, however, not who the head of State (or their conduit in the Governor-General) is, but how they got there. No female monarch as ever earnt their position, other than being born into the right family.

In a world full of divisions and selfishness, New Zealand shares its head of state with 15 other countries.

Again, this fact is a nonsense. Sharing your head of state does not lesson division or selfishness. India and Pakistan went to war in 1948, while both had the same head of state, King George V. England and Scotland have had a history of strife while sharing their head of State.

And in any case, all of the benefits New Zealand enjoys in its relationships with other Commonwealth countries are either unilateral (for example, trade agreements with Australia and Singapore) or through the Commonwealth (for example, access to fellow Commonwealth members' embassies). They have nothing to do with whether we have the Quen as our head of state or not.

The Queen is a completely apolitical head of state. She represents all New Zealanders regardless of their political views. This cannot happen in a republic.

The Queen is only apolitical because Her Majesty never intervenes in New Zealand politics - rendering the institution of monarchy as useless to New Zealand in any constitution sense. As the saying goes, "The Queen doesn't get muddy because she never plays in the mud". Governors-General are, however, poltical, and often make political statements and attempt to influence governments behind the scenes. However, since governments have no reason to listen to them, and the Governor-General has no real policy-making powers, they are often ignored.

Monarchies have statistically proven to foster greater trust between citizens.

The Republican Movement would like to see the statistics on this - but suffice to say that it seems strange the mere fact a country is a monarchy means that their is trust between its citizens.

Our monarchy is the least expensive political system available to the NZ taxpayers, and definitely provides the best possible value.

This fact is fiction. As the Republican Movement has shown from the 2008 Budget, this is nonsense. The Governor-General costs the New Zealand taxpayer around $11 million per annum. The President of Ireland, a country with about the same population as New Zealand and a parliamentary system of government, costs about $6.5 million per annum. The claim that the monarchy is cheaper is nonsense, as is the claim it's a better system of government.

Monarchy is government by a person, for the people, not government by a document for a document.

This "fact" just strange - it's not really a fact, it's a statement of opinion. But as for facts, when it comes to written constitutions almost every constitutional monarchy around the world is subject to a written constitution (which the Monarchist League dismisses as merely being a "document"). Only the United Kingdom and New Zealand are without one, while the only republic in the world that has an unwritten constitution is Israel.

The monarchy adds more colour and ceremony to government. It is the art in government.

This fact is, once again, strange. However, we ought to remember that there are a number of states that have plenty of colour and ceremony - North Korea, Cuba and Tonga. Hardly good company to keep! Irrespective, almost all of the ceremony of the monarchy takes place in the United Kingdom, and has nothing to do with New Zealand. We're sure that, should New Zealand become a republic, there will be plenty of Royal ceremonies about the place for monarchists to enjoy.