When the subject of the British Monarchy comes up, most people will come down hard on one side or the other. The antis will come up with arguments that it is expensive, antiquated and undemocratic. The pros often find it difficult to refute such arguments, even though they are for the Monarchy, but cannot come up with a reason why. Hopefully this little analogy will add some ammunition to their argument.
Copper is a very soft, pliable metal with very little uses except as an electrical conductor. It tends to corrode at the merest whiff of moisture. Tin has similar properties although it is more resistant to corrosion. It used to be used to make tin cans, but tin cans are now made of aluminium because tin is too expensive. Other than that, tin by itself has little use. It to is a soft metal. However, mix a little tin with copper about 10% and you have bronze - a durable hard metal with many uses. It can lay at the bottom of the sea for centuries without any corrosion. Add a little phosphor 1% and you have a metal that is so hard that it is used in bearings. Phosphor Bronze. Add a bit of zinc 2% and it is strong enough to make guns out of Gun Metal. Add varying quantities of lead and you get the unique characteristics of bells. Copper and Zinc 67%/33% by itself gives you brass, another hard, durable metal but more prone to corrosion. So it can be seen, a pretty mundane metal like copper, when mixed with small quantities of other metals can take on more desirable characteristics with little similarity to its constituent parts.
Government is pretty much the same. Democracy by itself is weak. It is open to abuse. Adolf Hitler’s rise to power is an example of what unfettered Democracy can lead to. Hitler became Head of Government through perfectly legitimate democratic elections, albeit with some devious activity along the way. The choice at the time was not to great. It was either The Communist Party or The National Socialist Party (the Nazis) and most people saw the Nazi Party as the lesser of two evils. Once Hitler became Head of Government he set about making himself Head of State. That was not to difficult as there was nothing to stop him except a politically weak President who was soon got rid off. I am sure The Communist Party would have done the same if they had won the elections in 1933, as demonstrated in Eastern Europe at then end of WW II.
America’s brand of Democracy is another example. Because there is no place for Plutocracy in their constitution, it is gravitating towards a Plutocracy of its own accord to the detriment of Democracy. If you take Democracy as the basis of government, add a little Plutocracy and a dash of Monarchy and you end up with something that is strong, durable and resistant to corruption and abuse, just like bronze.
The British brand of democracy ensure that no one branch of government can ever gain absolute power. If any branch should try, there are always two others ready to step forward and stop them. It must be remembered that the House of Lords was oringinally constituted to curtail the power of the Monarchy, long before the concept of Democracy ever reached these shores.
Finally, consider this, who would you sooner have as Head of State, a career politician who got to the top by lying and cheating and for his own personal gain, or someone who governs out of a sense of duty and has enough wealth they are beyond corruption?