Round a Mexican dinner-table, recently, a young economist was maintaining that the monarchy in Britain serves no purpose and is therefore a big waste of public money. I found myself retorting as follows.
"Do you not think President Trump has too much power?" I asked. "Yes", she replied."And do you think President Putin has too much power?" I asked. "Yes", she replied again."What about Maduro in Venezuela, al-Bashir in Sudan, Lopez Obrador in Mexico?". "Same thing", she agreed, "and in many other places"."Well then, perhaps we British are inclined to underestimate the benefit of our monarchy. The role might be a passive one, in that it obviates the need for a president."
I had a feeling that I had at least scored a point.
A few days later I read a chilling article [1] by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books claiming that George HW Bush, as vice president to Reagan, organized a private task force bypassing the CIA and Congress, which engaged in 35 covert operations aimed at curtailing the power of the Soviet Union. 'Covert' here means 'illegal', The organizers knew that the public would cry "foul". President Reagan was kept largely in the dark (we were told) from fear that he would blurt something out that gave the game away, but nevertheless took some criticism over the 'Iran-Contra Affair' [2], the operation that did leak out.) Hersh, who relies on contacts and 'smell', made a convincing story, but a shocking one. We caught a glimpse of how easy it would be for the levers of power to fall into the hands of one man.
No one can visualise the present Queen, or the Prince of Wales, playing such a role.
References:
[2] Ruled to be in breach of International Law by the International Court of Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment