Why constitutional monarchies are (currently) more democratic

Being both democratic and in favour of a royal head of state may be paradoxical. But in the current political context, that is the right thing to do. We can’t know “the will of the people” without elections, but that does not mean that every election reflects “the will of the people”. I don’t think that most of the presidents are actually democratically chosen. I have already discussed in more detail why our current electoral systems are not democratic and, ironically, we can actually learn something from Iran.

There is, however, a much bigger elephant in the room: the separation of powers. The separation of powers has prevented democratic societies from sliding into dictatorships. With this, I do not merely mean the separation between legislative, executive, and judicial branches, but also between politics, the economy, and religion.

When the first monarchies became more democratic, e.g. the United Kingdom or Belgium, it was the king who directly appointed the executive branch. In that situation, the legislative power was truly independent from the executive. It was also with that mindset that the USA constitution foresaw a president who directly appoints his cabinet.

However, political parties have become very efficient at winning elections – so much so that the hope of electing a neutral president in the USA is negligible. It is those political parties that are polarizing our society and pose the greatest risk for democratic survival. These parties have rendered the separation of power between the legislative and executive branches non-existent but in name. For parliamentary systems, in which the legislative branch elects the government, this separation is equally imaginary. So although constitutional monarchies are largely ceremonial, the little power they have (e.g. in Belgium, where they guide the formation of coalitions) is actually improving democracy.