Hi,

An elected ceremonial head of state certainly has some advantages, but I think it also removes one of the principal benefits of a full constitutional monarchy, which is the complete compartmentalisation between the head of state and democratic legitimacy.

The inherently undemocratic nature of an hereditary monarch is an essential part of their success, because it guarantees their continued and absolute political neutrality by denying them any ability to claim a popular mandate to express their political beliefs.

The Queen went her entire reign without voicing clear political beliefs because she knew there was no democratic basis for her to express them as head of state. Her continued position in the role was entirely dependent on said neutrality; its preservation was directly connected to her legitimacy as monarch.

In an elected system, by contrast, the ‘first citizen’ is able to claim legitimacy from a democratic mandate that is independent from the expectation of their neutrality. Now, their suitability for the role is no longer judged purely on whether they maintained that neutrality, but also on whether they spoke and acted in a way that most of the country liked. Those two requirements – to be neutral and to be democratically popular – are often going to be in direct opposition with one another, and in a contest between the two I’d suggest it’s likely the ‘first citizen’ would choose to follow the only one that directly decides if they keep the job or not, with that vital political neutrality a forlorn casualty by the wayside.

Moreover, I think reliably stopping the position from becoming politicised over time is dauntingly difficult. While you might say the post is intended to be ‘above politics’ the democratic nature of the election makes that almost impossible to enforce; people vote for all sorts of reasons outside the ones they’re ‘supposed to’, and ‘is this person someone I politically agree with’ is inevitably going to be a major consideration for many. For any candidate to be elected, they’d have to at least somewhat cater to those politically-motivated voters, and carry those promises into office. While that might not lead to a more politicised head of state immediately, depending on the candidates, the risk of it happening at some point in the future is significantly increased.

The alternative of placing formal constitutional limits on the first citizen to speak or address political issues might to some extent solve this problem, but guaranteeing they’d be maintained over time is difficult in an unentrenched constitutional system like the UK’s, and to be effective would have to so rigorously constrain their speech that the ability for them to then address important national issues lying adjacent to politics would be more hamstrung that our current system allows. The Queen’s address during COVID, for example, imploring everyone to stay isolated and adhere to the lockdown would be difficult to legally distinguish from enforcing more general government policy.

Ultimately, I’d argue having an elected, ceremonial, head of state would see the UK abandon a system with a proven track record and overwhelming popularity in favour of one that achieved broadly the same functions slightly less successfully with the added risk of executive mission creep and politicisation. I personally don’t think that’s worth it.

Have a lovely day