As President Barack Obama celebrates his first year in the OvalOffice, it is clear that the vast majority of the US public arerelaxed and comfortable about having an African American head ofstate. Many dispute his policies but his race is no longer really an issue -- whichis how it should be.
In Britain, however, we can only dream of a black head of state. Itisn't going to happen any time soon because the UK system is riggedagainst a black leader. Black and Asian Britons are effectively barredby the system of hereditary monarchy.
For the foreseeable future, as in centuries past, no African, Asian,Arab, Caribbean or Latino Briton is eligible to assume role of Britishhead of state.
Under Britain's constitutional system, the head of state is themonarch - at present Queen Elizabeth II, head of the House of Windsor.The position of monarch and head of state is inherited through theWindsor family line. The Windsors are white and only their descendantsare eligible to be monarch and British head of state. The result is ade facto race bar.
When the Queen dies, her role as head of state will pass to herfirst-born son, Charles. When he is dead, the title will pass to hisfirst-born son, William and so on. From white person to white personto white person. Under this system, black people are excluded. Theall-white Windsor family has the exclusive franchise on the office ofhead of state.
This white-favouring feudal system is totally out of step with thedemocratic, egalitarian and meritocratic ethos of modern British life.
A head of state is supposed to represent the nation and its people,and to symbolise its values and culture. In a diverse multi-ethnicsociety such as Britain, surely it is wrong to automatically, apriori, deny this honoured, revered role to non-white citizens?
Whichever way the defenders of monarchy try to spin it, there is noescaping the fact that the head of state position is open to only thewhite Windsors. Non-white people are shut out for decades to come, andpossibly much longer. They cannot hold the title of British head ofstate.
This makes the current method of appointing the head of state racistby default. Although it was not devised with racist intent, it isracist in effect. It reflects an institutional racism, where thesystem of appointment favours one race over others.
Despite monarchist protestations to the contrary, because the systemgives a race preference, even though this is an unintended sideeffect, the hereditary method of choosing the British head of statefrom the all-white Windsor family is racially exclusive and is racistin its consequence.
Equally appalling, this exclusion of non-white Britons excites nopublic outrage, not even from liberals, the left and African Britishant-racist campaign groups. They just accept it as "the British way"of doing things. Only the Green Party is calling for a democraticallyelected head of state. For the big three political parties - Labour,Conservative and Liberal Democrat - an inherited whites-only head ofstate is not a cause for concern and does not need reform.
This says a lot about the strong hold that tradition, privilege anddeference still have on the British psyche. The nation is torn betweentwenty-first century modernity and a nostalgic harking back to thealleged glories of empire, epitomised by the monarchy. So far, themonarchists have two-thirds of public opinion on their side.
The monarchical system may command majority support, at least for now.But this manner of determining Britain's head of state is surely anoffensive, bigoted anachronism. It is premised on the assumption thatthe most ignorant, stupid, immoral white Windsor is more entitled tobe head of state than the best-informed, wisest and most moral blackBriton. This is a truly repulsive racist assumption.
Non-white people are, of course, not the only ones denied the highestoffice in Britain. There are gender and faith exclusions too. If amonarch's first child is a daughter and the subsequent children aresons, the daughter will be passed over and the succession will begranted to the eldest son. Catholics and people of non- Christianfaiths are also barred from being monarchs and heads of state.
Indeed, all non-Windsors are excluded from the highest office, even ifthey possess far greater integrity, merit and wisdom than the currentand would-be future incumbents. This is the problem with decidingBritain's head of state via a system of hereditary monarchy: thechoice is limited and you get whoever the dynastic blood-line throwsup - good or bad, better or worse.
The second and third in line to the throne, Princes William and Harry,have a chequered record of sometimes less than regal behaviour,including drunkenness, violence and womanising. William is accused ofmisusing a military helicopter for personal gain - to attend a stagnight. Harry is infamous for attacking a photographer, dressing up ina Nazi uniform and for referring to an Asian army colleague using theracist term "paki." If either of them became King and head of state,the British people could not get rid of them, no matter how appallingtheir words and actions and no matter how badly they did the job.
It is true, of course, that Britain could one day have a black head ofstate. If a future monarch married a non-white person, their firstborn child could ascend to the throne and become head of state. Butthis is a matter of "if" and "could". There is no guarantee at all. Inany case, why should black and Asian Britons have to wait in line forgenerations? It is a vile insult to make them stand at the back of thequeue for the office of head of state.
The earliest change would be via Prince William. He is unlikely tobecome monarch for at least 25 years. If William married a blackBritish woman his first-born male child from that marriage couldinherit the head of state title, but only on William's death, which islikely to be more than half a century from now, in about 2080. Thepossibility that Britain could have a non-white head of state, likethe US, is still a distant dream.
The institutions of monarch and head of state are currently conjoined.They don't have to be. The British Parliament could vote to separatethem. Even if Britain decides to retain the monarchy, members ofparliament could legislate that the monarch should no longer be headof state. This would open the way for the British people to choose ahead of state who is elected by them, accountable to them and who isreplaceable by them if they fail in their duties. This system ofelection would open the office of head of state to citizens of bothgenders and all races and cultures, without discrimination, as befitsa multicultural society.
Ireland offers a practical, popular model of the kind of elected headof state that Britain could adopt: low-cost and purely ceremonial,without the often malign sweeping executive powers of the USpresidency.
Most Britons would not want a powerful and highly politicised head ofstate. They would prefer power to reside in a democratic,representative parliament, with the president being confined toceremonial duties.
An elected president need not be a politician. He or she could be awriter, like the first democratic post-Soviet era Czech president,Vaclav Havel. Or an academic, scientist, athlete or humanitarian.
President Mary MacAleese of Ireland, like her predecessor MaryRobinson, offers a positive example of a democratic head of state. Sheis an honourable symbol of the nation and enjoys huge public supportand respect. Her presidency costs one-twentieth of the official costof the British monarchy, and one hundred times less than the actualcost when you factor in security and other expenditure excluded fromBuckingham Palace's partial accounts.
If Ireland can have a successful democratic presidency, why can't Britain?
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, may the day soon come when theBritish head of state is chosen by the people, based on the quality oftheir character and not on their white royal parentage andaristocratic blood-line.