It seems odd today, but back in the 19th century as many nations were being transformed into modern states, Constitutional Monarchy was certainly one of the more popular forms of government. It seems quaint and archaic because few today see a role for a monarch. And yet thinkers of the time understood that it was important even in a parliamentary or constitutional system to have someone who could function as caretaker.
In several countries, the monarch was replaced by the
president and thus it's not unusual to find a prime minister as head of
government and a president (and sometimes a king) as head of state.
There are many variations and arrangements in how this can
work. Sometimes the president or king as head of state is a merely ceremonial
role in other cases the head of state will have specific (if limited) powers.
The point is, in numerous countries you have a figure that
can step in and intervene when things get, shall we say, out of hand. Iohannis
has intervened to block the appointment of a prime minister. In Italy with the
resignation of Prime Minister Renzi the president steps in and starts to
re-organise the government. He acts as a temporary leader or custodian. In
Spain with the end of the Franco regime it was the monarch Juan Carlos who
stepped in and helped shepherd the country toward parliamentary democracy. Even
recently during several failed attempts to form the government the king, in
this case Felipe VI, steps up and once again fulfills that 'shepherd' role and
then when the government is formed, steps back. It's also noteworthy that in
1981 Juan Carlos intervened and played an important role in blocking a coup
that sought to re-establish the Right-wing military dictatorship.
Sometimes like in Romania the actions of the head of state
risk fomenting a constitutional crisis. We'll have to wait and see.
In the United States the roles of head of government and
state were combined in the person of the president. He has powers that go
beyond those of a prime minister and then in addition as head of state fulfills
a ceremonial function and takes on something of that role as national shepherd
even though the US Constitution allows for no 'transitional' scenario. Because
the US is not a parliamentary system, No-Confidence votes and Snap Elections
are not a possibility. The government cannot resign.
The one institution that's supposed to (somewhat) serve in
this capacity is the Electoral College. Supposedly if a completely unviable
candidate was selected the college could reverse the popular vote. And yet
apart from a few individual reversals the very fluid, unique and temporary
institution has never dared to do so. In fact if they did, it would provoke a
constitutional crisis.
The perfect opportunity was in 2016 with Trump's victory in
the presidential election. He lost the popular vote by a significant margin and
certainly was one of the most unpopular and unqualified candidates to ever win
the election. In terms of the Electoral College, he won but once again when the
college met in December to actually decide the presidential race there was
(hypothetically) no guarantee or even legal requirement that they follow the
popular vote. The usual winner-take-all method of the college strikes many as
rather lame and in the case of 2000 and 2016 meant the candidate who lost the
popular vote, but won the right combination of states won the election.
If we had a system in which the head of state was a figure
apart from the president, we could have had an instance like what just happened
in Romania. The head of state could step up and say, 'wait a minute, this won't
do'. And he could have potentially forced a new election.
In some ways this system is understandable and provides an
interesting safeguard.
Of course if the Electoral College had reversed the election,
you would have a significant bloc within congress that would have balked and
there would be a strong potential for civil unrest. Apart from the one episode
of civil war, the United States has been able to force through sometimes
controversial transitions of power. And yet if elections continue to be
controversial as they were in 2000, 2004 and now 2016, the years of smooth
sailing may come to an end and the American system has no real mechanism of
intervention and/or temporary custodianship.
At that point some might wish for a king, not as a ruling
monarch but as one who can intervene. Even though Britain's monarchs no longer
exercise power, they still can quietly exert some influence and the outward
forms of monarchical ratification are retained. The Queen formally asks
incoming prime minister's to form a government. Sitting prime minister's go the
monarch to tender their resignation. Elizabeth goes to the parliament each year
and presides over its opening. Though the monarch doesn't exercise real day-to-day
power and Charles recently upset many when it was revealed he was receiving
intelligence briefings, nevertheless the monarch waits in the wings as it were
and exerts some influence. If trouble were to arise, the monarch could (as in
Spain) step in and provide leadership during a time of transition.
There's something to be said for such a system and for all
the clever mechanisms of balance found within the US system, it is a far cry
from perfect and has in many ways painted itself into a corner, a reality that
becomes clear during times of crisis.
An interesting additional note with regard to Romania:
The king in Romania played a much more forceful role during
World War II. Michael I played a significant part in the coup that removed pro-Nazi
dictator Ion Antonescu in 1944 and moved Romania from the Axis into the Allied
camp. When the communists took over in 1947, Michael was forced to abdicate and
go into exile. The monarchy was subsequently abolished.
He was allowed to permanently return to Romania in 1997 with
his citizenship restored. There was a real possibility of the monarchy being
restored in the 1990s, so much so that his visits in the early parts of the
decade were controversial. But now as the decades have passed it's become clear
the will be no restoration. The president is head of state.
I mentioned him for two reasons. One it's an extreme example
of the head of state intervening on behalf of the nation and two... many people
have forgotten as of December 2016, he's still alive. He's the last of the
important World War II leaders. Because the Eastern Front is almost ignored in
the West, he has received very little attention and yet I find it fascinating
that this man, who was installed as a puppet of the fascists, had met with Hitler
and Mussolini and yet dramatically rose up and helped throw down his own
nation's Right-wing dictatorship, still walks among us.
There are many World War II survivors still alive, although
they're all very old at this point. Michael is the last of the public figures,
a leader who played a not insignificant part in the course of the war. A living
relic, he'll be gone soon. He's 95 and in poor health.