Arguably, in the entire world there are various forms of government, in which countries have an option to adopt. One of the forms is called constitutional monarchy. This is a form of government, whereby a monarch takes charge of the state within the specified parameter stated in a constitution. It can be blended constitution, written or uncodified. In one way or another, constitutional monarchy differs from the absolute monarchy; in this case, absolute monarchy is a form of government whereby absolute monarch is a basis of power, but it is not constitutionally bound in legal terms, yet the monarch has powers to control respective government. Certainly, Japan and England is under the constitutional monarchy for a historic long period of time.
The Monarch in Japan and England act as state heads, but in the recent past, some royal prerogatives were removed by the cabinet and parliament under the rule of the constitution. Nevertheless, monarchies in Japan and England still have tremendous roles stated by the constitution. As a point of similarities, Japan and England are two island countries, which operate under the constitutional monarchy. In both nations, it is important to assert that the monarch are ceremonial and more so important in undertaking state functions (Craig, 167).
Japan is one of the constitutional monarchy headed by an Emperor, as well as being guided by parliamentary rules. In this case, the powers that the Emperor have are limited; in fact, the constitution of Japan defines the emperor as the symbol of unity nationally, as well as within the state. The sovereignty is in the hands of the Japanese people, while on the other hand, the Prime minister in the republic of Japan enjoys a lot of powers (Thomas 216). On issues of diplomacy, the emperor is the figurehead to act in such ceremonial occasions. In Japan and England, it is evident that the powers of the monarchy may come into practice when parliament is dissolved. Generally, it depends with what is the cause, but the monarch has powers or refuse the parliamentary move (BBC).
On the other hand, England is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Just like Japanese monarchy, monarchy system in England is stated and empowered by the constitution. The Queen is the head of the House of Lords. There are two forms of leadership houses in England; it includes the House of Commons and the House of Lords. England has existed in a unified system for many decades (Craig 170). The Japanese and England constitutional power are distributed in terms of hierarchy. Despite the existence of democracy, each one in the monarch and legislative post has roles and obligation that re directed.
The unique position held by the emperor and the Queens depends on institutional history, in the contemporary society. The throne as well as the partly upon premeditated attempts by a political leader develop an over lordship leading to prevention of political and economic forces. In Japan and America, the emperor and the Queen respectively posses a lot of authority, but work under the trappings of parliament laws. Nevertheless, in both countries the monarchy is a good symbol of stability and unity. Furthermore, presently constitutional monarchy in Japan and England is limited to two senses; it includes the constitution and sovereignty of actions is limited by the parliament. The constitution on both countries does not allow the monarch to govern with sovereignty (Craig 175).
It is of the essence, to elaborate that the head of a monarch in Japan is known as Emperor, while in England the head of a monarch is the queen who head the House of Lords. The British and the Japan monarchy both share common features in that they encompass families of mutual origin who are empowered to assume both official as well as public duties. In addition, both the monarchies are stipulated in the constitution of the respective states with a common symbol of national unity Nonetheless differences exists in the two monarchies based on the way assume the roles enticed to them by the constitution. Whereas in the case of Japan, members of the extended family but in the case of England can perform the roles of the monarch, particular members of the royal family perform the roles (BBC).
Japan and England have outstanding monarchies, but little power ids entrusted to them. As a matter of fact, democracies in Japan and England hold almost all forms of political power. In these entire nations, they probably choose to transition its system of governance and power from monarchy to a democracy (Huntington 78). In the contemporary society, there are situations where countries operate under monarchial system, but works alongside the parties’ democracy. In many occasions, monarchies have influenced the successfulness and development of the current democracies in Japan and England.
Undeniably, many questions have been raised on why other nations would opt to develop a transition strategy from monarchical rule to democracy, while other opt not to. In the study of democracy, this has been the most heatedly and pivotal debate. In the last decades, many political theorists such as Lipset Martin and Samuel Huntington have tremendously strolled to outline a conceptual framework that will explain this sort of transitions. As a matter of fact, not all societies, which chose transition from monarchy to democracy can sustain it (McNelly 366)
Monarchy and democracy are forms of government that are still practiced in Japan and England. The best way to describe democracy is that it is a government with public power. Primarily nations advocate for democracy because on a democratic nation, the law treats all people equally (BBC). There is no sort of discriminatory laws set in place. In Japan and England, the monarch, despite the constitutional powers is the real law. Basically, choosing a transition from monarchy to democracy promises the public freedom and equality.
Based on theoretical analysis, the transition from monarchy to democracy in these countries engages a replacement of hereditary monopoly to interchangeable caretakers, which include members of parliament, presidents and the prime ministers. One of the reasons why these nations opt for a transition from monarchy to democracy is that it allows free entry to various positions existing in the state. In the monarchial system, there are various restrictions that curtail individuals from holding certain positions (Thomas 235). By doing so, it ensures that very individual gets an opportunity to exercise his/her freedom and democracy in leadership. In every institution, competition is the key to achieving and delivery the best things, Therefore, transition from monarchy to democracy increases the quality of services and well-being.
In Japan and England, the transition from monarchy to democracy is seen by many as a way of promoting social rate on issues related to time preference. In most cases, monarchy leads to inflation, increase in public debt, increase in taxes, as well as a series of legislation. On the other hand, democracy is a toll that encourages redistribution of resources and transparency. Additionally, democracy is a tool that offers a peaceful modification and reshuffle in the government without any hostile situations. In Japan and England, transition to democracy gives more powers to the public (McNelly 378).
Averting monopolistic power is one of the reasons why Japan and England go for democracy. In these nations, government is perhaps confined to elections of which parties need to compete and convince the public to vote them in. Generally, democracy averts the reigning party monopoly and gives it to the best option at the time of elections. In fact, this works as a strategy to development; in that, the party in power will always work to its best, o meet the demands of the public, so as to be re-elected.
Moreover, Japan and England choose transition from monarchy to democracy so as to develop a sense of gratitude towards the general public. As a matter of fact, the party in government owes the public the promises made during elections; hence, they focus in accomplishing these demands. The general public will always feel part of the developments and decision making process. Democracy inspires citizens to cooperate with the government in economic, social, and political developments (Craig 182).
The only way that citizen fulfills their social responsibility is through a democratic election. This is vital because it instills a sense of contribution among citizens, especially in selecting a government. Furthermore, Japan and England opt for democracy so as to promote peace and prosperity (Colegrove 657). Individuals in the monarch system are very different, meaning the leadership traits and strategies they implement are far much multifaceted. Therefore, it is very intricate to find an appropriate leader in Japanese and England monarchy. Democracy ensures that leaders are elected by a fair procedure and only the best always emerge the winners.
Democracy increases and enhances distribution of recourses among the citizens. In a monarchy, state power and resource dominate in the hands of the few people. But, transitions to democracy lead to equal and fair distribution of resources, as well as good decision making. Economically, monarchy system wastes a lot of public and government resources. For example, the royal public spends fortunes of resources in maintaining the status in the world. It is through a transition that a country may enjoy minimum resource use and fair allocation (Huntington 90). To some extent, scholars and public assert on the moral issue of the monarchy. It is morally wrong to strain citizens on payment of taxes, and use it to finance the flamboyant and lavish lifestyle of the monarch extended family. In a democratic form of government, there is a high level of accountability and transparency.
In two centuries ago, historians and political scientist have been interested in modern democracies and monarchy systems. In Japan and England monarchy and democratic parties work alongside each other in various ways (Colegrove 662). Critically, laws and the constitution reduce the complexities and clashing of goals and objectives of the monarch and democratic systems. The constitution of these nations defines and dictates the role of each. In order to enjoy its fame and roles, political parties need to accept the monarchial power concepts.
Traditionally democratic parties in Japan and England have dominated the political system. The manner of these relationships between these democratic parties and the monarch is unique in every nation, depending in the form of monarchy. The democratic parties are very powerful in relation to the public contest. This is because, it is the public who decides the fade of the legislature and the constitution formation, since they elect the legislatures. On the other hand, the monarch is more ceremonial and deal with issues related to international relations.
In the contemporary monarchies are mostly divided into various categories. One of it include, parliamentary monarchy, in this case the monarch powers mostly reigns, but its relationship with democratic powers is that, the cabinet, which is formed by democratic parties, carries the rule (Colegrove 657). The democratic parties are mainly responsible in electing members of parliament who make the laws. This implies that the ultimate powers of the monarch, depends on the rule of the democratic parties, which lies on the decision of the citizens.
Additionally, the monarch has various functions describe in the constitutions such as the ruler of state, identity, symbol of continuity, as well as unity. The monarch in some occasions is part of electing a prime minister discretionally, only if there is no democratic party that claims majority in parliament (Thomas 240). This shows that the monarch occasionally, performs some duties of the Democratic Party. Perhaps in this case, the best examples include Japan and England.
With modernity and globalizations, modern constitutional issues on monarch view monarch as simple rile compared to the past. The constitution and the parliament dictates the power of the monarch. As a matter of fact, evolution in thinking and political view has spawn as political parties and universal suffrage. In the 2oth and 21st century, political culture and democracies have shifted how people vie constitutional monarchy. The heads on the monarchial systems have been reduced in terms of status to figureheads, with minimal power. Society has embraced the democratic parties and its impacts on politics, economy and social lives of citizens (Huntington 97). A new view has gone to an extend of giving constitutional monarchy status that degrades them. They have been made to focus more on serving g the people, rather than enjoying office. In Japan and England, constitutional monarchy survives because they always adjust to new challenges and become more adaptable to various divergent conditions.
Conclusively, the constitutional monarch in England and Japan have various similarities and differences that are associated with form of leadership, execution of power, as well as constitutional mandates. In fact, the two countries have monarchies, but the only problem is that they are entrusted with minimal powers. The countries have the same political power, as well as choosing the transition from monarchy to democracy.
Work Cited
BBC. Japan Profile, 27 December 2011
Craig, D. The Crowned Republic? Monarchy and Anti-monarchy in Britain 1760-1901. The
Historical Journal, Cambridge.2003, Vol. 46, No. 1 pp167-185
Colegrove, K. The Japanese Emperor. The American Political Science Review. 1932, Vol. 26,
No. 4 pp642-659
Huntington, S. The Political Modernization of Traditional Monarchies. 1966, Vol. 95, No. 3,
McNelly, T. The Role of Monarchy in the Political Modernization of Japan. Comparative
Politics. New York: New York University, 1969, Vol. 1, No 3 pp366-381
Thomas, J. Weber and Direct Democracy. The British Journal of Sociology, Blackwell. 1984
Vol. 35 No.2 pp216-240
