KILSBY AUSTRALIA transport policy, planning and management advice
 

Monarchy or Republic?

In December 2003 the Economist asked whether a system based on democratic elections gives you better politicians than an undemocratic system based on hereditary dynasties.

To answer the question, it assessed the last 20 US Presidents and the last 20 British monarchs for political achievement. While they were not strictly comparable (monarchy is a lifelong role whereas presidency is for a limited period) the rather surprising result, according to the Economist, was that Britain with its 20 monarchs (from 1547) had done slightly better than the US with its 20 presidents (from 1893)!

The rating system for political achievement is of course highly subjective, but is based on a score where 1 is the best performance and 4 is the worst. The Economist's tables for monarchs and presidents make delicious reading. But does their conclusion hold water?

Political Achievement by last 20 English/British Monarchs
Source: Economist Christmas issue, December 2003

Monarch Reign Rating Reason
Edward VI 1547-53 3 Sheepish but doctrinaire child
Mary I 1553-58 2 Good alliance with Spain, avoided rebellion
Elizabeth I 1558-1603 1 Got religious settlement
James I 1603-25 2 Religious accommodation, enlarged kingdom
Charles I 1625-49 4 Bad alliances, antagonised everyone
Commonwealth 1645-59 -   -
Charles II 1660-85 1 Smoothed transition back to monarchy
James II 1685-88 3 Good at politics, bad at religious compromise
William & Mary 1689-94 -   -
William III 1694-1702 2 Shrewd, got England into wars with French
Anne 1702-14 3 Easily dominated but good on horseback
George I 1714-27 2 Got throne, got Walpole, got rich
George II 1727-60 2 Took country into wars he wished to fight
George III 1760-1820 4 Mad, lost much of North America
George IV 1820-30 4 Connoisseur but repressive, corrupt
William IV 1830-37 3 Vulgar nonentity, popular
Victoria 1837-1901 1 Nation's steady focus in its most glorious era
Edward VII 1901-10 2 Kept people happy, gave start to Liberals
George V 1910-36 3 Stupid, weak and dull
Edward VIII 1936 4 Had neither appetite nor aptitude for job
George VI 1936-52 2 Good war
Elizabeth II 1952- 2 Conscientious and long-suffering

Political Achievement by last 20 US Presidents
Source: Economist Christmas issue, December 2003

President Term Rating Reason
Grover Cleveland 1893-97 2 Decent and able in most corrupt of times
William McKinley 1897-01 3 Mediocrity
Theodore Roosevelt 1901-09 1 Inconstant but inspiring, a reformer
William Taft 1909-13 2 Decent, stolid, fat
Woodrow Wilson 1913-21 2 Great reformer though tragic figure
Warren Harding 1921-23 4 Stupid and corrupt
Calvin Coolidge 1923-29 3 Honest but limited
Herbert Hoover 1929-33 4 Failed to rise to the occasion
Franklin Roosevelt 1933-45 1 Saved the world
Harry Truman 1945-53 2 Rose to the occasion, good helpers, policies
Dwight Eisenhower 1953-61 2 Decent post-war consolidator
John Kennedy 1961-63 2 Able, good missile crisis, little achieved
Lyndon Johnson 1963-69 3 Good reforms, bad economics, worse war
Richard Nixon 1969-74 4 Capable of brilliance but corrupt, reckless
Gerald Ford 1974-77 3 Decent, but limited succedaneum
Jimmy Carter 1977-81 3 Good intentions, few achievements
Ronald Reagan 1981-89 2 Good cold warrior, amiable, limited
George Bush senior 1989-93 3 Good war, otherwise mediocre
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 3 Brilliance outweighed by dishonesty
George Bush junior 2001- 3 Too soon to rate him more highly

so what?

The Economist's view that using a hereditary incumbent is a slightly better system than the people voting for their choice was based on the average scores for political achievement - the 20 Brits at an average of 2.5 did slightly better than the 20 Americans at an average of 2.6.

Weighting the scores by the number of years the occupant was in the "hot seat" produced an even more telling result - 2.0 for the Brits and 2.4 for the Americans. Game set and match?

Not necessarily. For instance, it is noticeable that five of the 20 British monarchs were women, while none of the Americans were. And the five women scored very well - an average of 1.8 for the queens, compared to an average of 2.6 for the 35 men (2.6 for the 20 presidents and 2.7 for the 15 kings). So an equally defensible (or indefensible, depending how you look at it) conclusion would be that you're better off with a woman in charge!

Back to "Miscellaneous" index