Throughout the centuries the British monarchy has always been involved in the governance of the kingdom. Yet some argue that, because of his age, he has become too undemocratic to be included and have representative government. Is Britain's constitutional monarchy too old and undemocratic to govern effectively? Or does its deep-rooted tradition maintain a strong and stable system of government? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay As a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is our head of state. The entire government is currently held under the Queen's name, but she holds no real power over the government of the country. Apart from the possibility of making a dugout and reopening parliament, the various checks and balances inherent to the monarch's position have remained unused for the last 300 years. In a democratic form of government there are two offices whose positions must be filled: the head of state and the head of government. These two offices can be merged as in the United States. However, in most countries these offices are separate and the head of state may be a president or a monarch. In the United Kingdom our head of state is the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, and our head of government is the prime minister. Britain is particularly unique compared to other modern constitutional monarchies; it has a monarchy but no codified constitution. The only other country to share the same system is New Zealand which shares the same head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. The word democracy comes from the Greek demos kratos which means government or citizen power and therefore a democracy is where the people elect a representative to govern on their behalf. Therefore, the concept of an unelected monarch as the head of state of a democracy is itself contradictory. Many republicans argue that an individual should not be allowed to represent British democracy unless he is elected and receives his position through a hereditary inheritance process. The monarch cannot be held accountable to the nation he ostensibly represents. And because of this many people in the UK are wondering what the role of the sovereign is and what it really means to have a monarch as head of state. Checks and Balances The development of the British constitution over the centuries has led to the reduction of royal power and its transfer to cabinet ministers. As such, one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the sovereign and ensure that he acts in accordance with the democratic values ​​of the government. Therefore, the monarch, according to the Constitution, does not act as a threat to democracy but rather as its guardian. If for any reason the constitution appears to be in danger, then the monarch, according to the constitution, can act as a guardian to protect democracy by ensuring the preservation of the constitution. However, in the extremely rare event (so rare that it hasn't happened for 300 years) that such an event occurs, the monarch must do so on the advice of the government and not completely on his own initiative. RoleAlthough it is the duty of the head of state to protect it, the symbol of Britain as a state is not the constitution itself. Unlike the republics of the United States or France, the symbol of the British state and nation is a person. It is argued that this is better for the state as a whole because it is easier for its people to feel a sense of loyalty to a living, breathing individual who embodies the state's core values ​​rather than a piece of paper that simply defines them. . However, in.