Duncan Wilson (Letters, 8 June 8) appears to have missed the significant differences between a parliamentary republic and a monarchy. Republic doesn’t, as he suggests, advocate for an elected monarch in all but name.
Aside from other major reforms, such as a fully elected parliament and a codified constitution, a republic gives us a genuinely non-partisan head of state who is also independent of government. The experience of other parliamentary republics, such as Ireland, Iceland, Finland and Germany, shows that this is a successful model compared with the British constitution.
The role of head of state is, in part, to hold reserve powers so that, in times of crisis or political paralysis, an independent figure can step in. They can also defend the codified constitution if it is assaulted by parliament or government. As for the monarchy’s soft power and the idea that it has influenced the spread of democracy in the Commonwealth, that is fanciful, to say the least.
Graham Smith
Chief executive officer, Republic
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
