Is monarchy just an illusion, used to dignify shadowy forces?

Walter Bagehot famously drew the distinction between the efficient and the dignified parts of government, with the latter being intended to bolster the former. But is this the whole truth?

Photo by Lians Jadan on Unsplash. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. Click here for The WM Review Reading List (with direct links for US and UK readers).

The Efficient and the Dignified

Walter Bagehot, an enormously influential writer on the English constitution, wrote that there are two parts of government.

“[F]irst, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population – the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts – those by which it, in fact, works and rules.

“There are two great objects which every constitution must attain to be successful, which every old and celebrated one must have wonderfully achieved: every constitution must first gain authority, and then use authority; it must first win the loyalty and confidence of mankind, and then employ that homage in the work of government.”[1]

The “most dignified” institution of all is, of course, the Crown.

Elsewhere, Bagehot writes:

“As long as we keep up a double set of institutions – one dignified and intended to impress the many, the other efficient and intended to govern the many – we should take care that the two match nicely, and hide where the one begins and where the other ends.”[2]

And further:

“[The English constitution] contains “dignified” parts – parts, that is, retained, not for intrinsic use, but from their imaginative attraction upon an uncultured and rude population.”[3]

To state things in simplistic and cynical terms, Bagehot presents a picture in which “the dignified” institutions are used as an ruse to trick “the many” into being governed properly by “the efficient” institutions.

Bagehot’s theories have shaped how many have viewed the monarchy – not least, we are told, the monarchs themselves. No doubt this is an accurate description of how ceremony and pomp are used to achieve the ends of government.

But is it true, that the monarchy can be completely understood in this reductive and utilitarian way, as theatre at the service of brute force?

Is the monarch nothing more than a figurehead, imparting a dignity and legitimacy to those who actually wield power?

Would this even be a negative thing in itself, aside from being open to abuse?

Some of these questions are expressed in a very simplistic way. But to consider the ideas, let’s look at the teaching of Holy Scripture about power and civil authority.