Contrary to Americans’ belief, monarchies are not absolutist and work hand-in-hand with democracies
One never gets bored hearing listeners’ opinions on Spanishlanguage radio. There are moderate and thoughtful people; others are more passionate and belligerent. However, one can extracts from all the commentary a sense of what worries our community.
In the past few days, the topic has turned, inevitably, to the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the ascendance of her successor, Charles III. When Spanish-language radio stations in Miami gave the floor to listeners, as a European born in a monarchical country, I realized that the perception of the Royal houses and their place within democratic systems are not well-understood on this side of the world.
One Cuban-American woman went so far as to compare the British monarchy to communism and the Castros, arguing that inheriting a position for family reasons is proof that both the United Kingdom and Cuba are dictatorial.
I heard of Queen Elizabeth’s death while I was in Guatemala. I was accompanied by a company’s executive. When I told her the news, she replied that she was not interested in royal houses. She said it was an anachronism that there were still queens in the 21st century .
From these two examples, I realized that the royal houses of countries as important as the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain have not been able to convey their evolution and their fit in the democratic system — what we call parliamentary monarchies.
The Cuban-American woman and the young Guatemalan executive have inherited the prejudices of past generations that see kings as absolutists, despots and elitists. It is no longer a matter of discussing which is the best system of government, monarchy or republic. No, for many people, monarchy is synonymous with dictatorship.
But they think that way in error. The parliamentary monarchy is a form of government that, in many countries, exquisitely preserves the separation of powers. Monarchs play an institutional role as independent arbiters between political parties, representatives abroad and links between citizens of different views.
Kings reign, but do not govern. They live on a budget assigned to them by the state and are supervised and controlled.
I think that the British monarchy can be more interesting in a world so polarized. Elizabeth II become the glue between the Conservatives and the Labour Party, but also between the Scottish Unionists and the proindependence supporters, a singular achievement. Not for nothing did she choose Scotland as the place to die.
It was a gesture of integration with a part of the United Kingdom in which the polls indicate that a majority wants to be independent.
Although tabloids and celebrity magazines have grown rich by showing this more frivolous face of the British Royal House, Elizabeth II’s contribution to democracy is undeniable. And she ruled with her silences, too. She had to remain silent on matters about which she surely had opinions, but kept them to herself because of her institutional role.
The risk of maintaining a parliamentary monarchy as a form of government lies in continuing to train heirs in the spirit of service to their country. In Spain, for instance, Felipe VI is maintaining his father’s well-thought-of legacy in his role as mediator in the political struggle in the country. At the same time, he has exchanged the private excesses of Juan Carlos I for exemplary, discreet and transparent behavior.
Felipe VI is an honorable husband and father, who manages a royal house with a moderate and closely supervised budget, the equivalent or less than that of the presidencies of neighboring countries.
In these times of misinformation, it is a good exercise for Americans to learn about how European monarchies really work.
Manuel Aguilera is founder and CEO of the HispanoPost Media Group. He is a former executive editor of Univision’s online platform.