ARE MONARCHIES STILL RELEVANT?

Queen Elizabeth II, the only queen most everyone in the English speaking world ever knew, died at the age of 96. Upwards of two million people expressed their anguish, sorrow and respect observing the carefully choreographed and flawlessly executed funeral arrangements throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For most, the Queen's impressive regal funeral ceremony was largely appreciated. For many it must have felt like the passing of a greatly admired and respected family member. The pomp and ceremony surrounding the ascension of Elizabeth's son, Prince Charles, to King Charles III, however, came across as the pageantry from a bygone era. For some spectators the spectacle must have raised questions about the kingdom's orthodox attempt at portraying Britain as the last remaining vestige of traditional royal rule. While the display of pageant splendor surrounding the British royal family may well be the most elaborate of its kind in the western world, the institution itself is not the last remaining monarchical relic in modern times. There are still 43 sovereign states in the world that are ruled by a monarch as head of state. Of these, Europe features seven kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and, of course, The United Kingdom. Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are principalities. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, and Vatican City is described as a theocratic elective monarchy. Most of these are constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not influence the politics of the state, either because of convention or because it is explicitly forbidden by their constitution. None of these exhibit the elaborate demonstration of traditional pageantry displayed in the U.K. All of them have adapted to contemporary realities. None are seriously threatened with extinction. Almost all regularly receive 80% plus support from their constituency. This last point ought to be considered as one of the challenges newly minted King Charles needs to be concerned about. While the timing may be inappropriate, "republicans," organized in a persistent movement seeking to replace the monarchy with an alternative form of governance ruled by an elected head of state, are already erecting anti-monarchy banners advocating to "Make Elizabeth the Last." Support for King Charles' ascension to the throne is benefiting from the emotions of the moment. However, his challenges are rapidly mounting. Domestically, the republican movement feels that their time has come. Graham Smith, CEO of the campaign group "Republic," clarified that "the Queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the institution is in serious jeopardy." Charles is significantly less popular than his mother was. The word is already spreading that Britain's new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, albeit 27 years ago, confirmed that, in her opinion, the monarchy should be abolished. If not abolished, chances are that significant reductions could affect the size of the realm. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party which seeks unification with the Republic of Ireland, captured the largest number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly this year. In Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party, already announced plans for another referendum on Scottish independence next year. And then there is the issue of the Commonwealth. King Charles becomes the titular head of state of 14 countries, or realms, in the Commonwealth. Doubtlessly influenced by pressure from Queen Elizabeth, the 2018 Commonwealth Conference agreed that Charles would get the role after becoming king. However, his position is honorary, not hereditary. While his role as head of state is symbolic, and while few things are expected to change, some suspect that the royal succession could strengthen existing republican movements in Commonwealth countries as well. Last year, Barbados already removed the British monarch as head of state, and transitioned to a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial, indirectly elected, president. Jamaica's prime minister, Andrew Holness, announced that his country intends to leave the monarchy by the time of its next election in 2025. Belize, Antigua and Barbuda have indicated similar intentions. Support for a break with the monarchy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is still relatively minor. However, the sentiment is growing. Amongst the elaborate symbolism and pervasive historic, but archaic pomp and ceremony reminiscent of 16th Century monarchism, many "subjects" are revisiting the question whether the institution has enduring relevance and utility. Steadfast royalists answer this question in the affirmative. They argue that: Monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state can not; In politically unstable countries, like e.g. Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from civil war; Monarchs prevent the emergence of extreme forms of government - they encourage slow, incremental change instead of extreme swings; and, perhaps just as important, they are repositories of tradition and continuity - which is comforting to many. King Charles' challenge will be how to refashion the monarchy and maintain public support for it as a ceremonial institution at the center of British public life, providing an anchor at a time when the pace of change is bewildering to many. His expressed commitment to slim it down might include bringing it into the modern world, akin to what most continental European monarchies have done, safeguarding their continued existence in the process. Theo Wierdsma

HISTORIC TRENDS FORECAST ELECTION OUTCOME

Democrats have recently grown more confident that their party may escape the predicted slaughter at the ballot box during the upcoming midterm elections this November. President Biden still receives negative approval ratings. Only 13 percent of Americans still believe that the country is on the right track. Seventy-four percent believe we are going in the wrong direction. Those voters blame Biden, even though most still favor him over Trump. Inflation, immigration, Afghanistan and supply chain are still major issues. And even though the president is not on the ballot and voters can't take their dissatisfaction out on him, they tend to take it out on members of his party, which hold incredibly thin majorities in Congress and have very few seats to lose. So, what prompted these somewhat improved confidence levels? One major issue dominating political campaigns this time around is the Supreme Court's decision to overturn "Roe v. Wade," which legalized abortion in 1973. The current court's decision conflicts with the opinion expressed by a significant majority of the population. Credible polls indicate that 61% of those interviewed believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, contrasted with 37% who believe the opposite. With at least 12 states subsequently banning abortion all together and states like Texas now passing legislation making abortion a felony punishable by life in prison, emotions are running high. In addition, recent significant legislative accomplishments, an increased attention on former president Donald Trump's manipulations during the transition, and heightened concerns about attacks on our democratic system of government, have given candidates even more to run on. The sequence of events have proven marginally beneficial for the Democratic party's prospects. According to several recent polls, President Biden's approval ratings surged from a low of 31% in July to a high of 44% in late August - his highest yet this year. The president is still "under water," but Democrats believe they see a trend. Nevertheless, Democrats would be advised to not be over confident. History tells us that during midterm elections the party in power generally does not do very well. Since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House and an average of 4 seats in the Senate. Republicans only need to gain 5 House seats and 1 seat in the Senate to take over as majority party in Congress. To put the statistics in perspective, since 1934, the president's party has only twice managed to pick up seats during midterm elections. Bill Clinton added 5 additional seats in 1998, although Republicans maintained control of Congress. During George W. Bush's first midterm election in 2002 the Republican Party added 8 House seats and two Senate seats, only the third time since the Civil War that this happened. Some midterm losses, however, were very significant: In 1938 FDR lost 71 seats, even though Democrats retained the majority; Bill Clinton lost 52 seats in 1994 as a result of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" campaign; Barack Obama ended up with 63 fewer seats in 2010; and Donald Trump received 40 fewer seats in 2018. Aside from contemporary politically salient issues, factors influencing midterm election outcomes include: redistricting, viable contestants, voter turnout, and, this time around, the "Trump factor." Every ten years, after the country completes a census, redistricting causes many legislative districts to change. Redistricting is an ugly process, which generally prompts multiple lawsuits. Some of these do reach the Supreme Court. However, the Court has declined to enter the political partisan fray, concentrating instead on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Nationally, Republicans currently tend to have the advantage. There are 28 states with Republican governors and only 22 governed by Democrats who control the process. It goes without saying that, in most cases, it is important who actually competes for eligible seats. As of now, 6 senators and 32 representatives are not running for reelection. Seventeen of these are running for other offices. The reputable Cook Political Report estimates that 32 House seats - 24 Democrats and 8 Republicans - fall in the "toss-up" category, meaning that these seats are most competitive, giving either party a chance of winning. In the Senate race, 14 Democrat controlled seats and 21 Republicans are up for election. Only four of these appear appear to be "toss-ups." Whoever turns out the vote usually wins. Voter turn out during midterm elections is generally 20% lower than participation in presidential elections. In general, Republicans tend to vote more consistently than Democrats. Nevertheless, major issues may determine who comes out to cast his or her ballot. While a number of weeks ago the focus might still have been on Covid, the economy, supply chain issues and others, Democrats are hoping that abortion, their recent legislative successes and the ever more conspicuous "Trump factor" may bring their supporters out in larger numbers this time around. While some of their support may have been fading, they expect that, instead of not coming to the polls at all, these subgroups decide to come out and make their voices heard after all. So, finally, the "Trump factor" cannot be ignored. While the former president has energized and enlisted substantial new numbers of voters to the GOP, his celebrity status has turned to notoriety after January 6, 2021. His insistence to continue as power broker in the party has developed negative consequences. Having Trump to run against helps Democrats even when he is not on the ballot. They can make the election about him. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged this during a recent speech at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon. McConnell admitted that his party may not win back the Senate because of a "lack of candidate quality." He suggested that the former president was in essence on the ballot, but that some of his hand-picked Senate candidates were "looking gloomier" than some prognosticators might have predicted. And then there is Donald Trump's own counsel to his party, which he issued on October 13 of 2021: "If we don't solve the Presidential Election fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in '22 or '24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do." If enough Republicans listen to that, the party is in trouble, and Democrats may rejoice against all odds. Theo Wierdsma