You don't have to be a republican to find the Royal Wedding offensive

Today billions of people worldwide will be watching the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton .  It’s indisputably an historic event as the likely future head of the British state, William Windsor, marries his future Queen Consort.  The blanket, unquestioning media coverage will no doubt grate with republicans - who wish to see an end to the British monarchy - but it should also sit uneasily with a much wider audience.  The wedding is a celebration of all that is wrong with Britain today; a lack of democracy, support for despotic regimes and inherited privilege.  

Alarmingly the wedding endorses the flouting of human rights offenders.  As is protocol for such events, several representatives from nations that regularly flout the human rights of their subjects will be in attendance at Westminster Abbey.  We don’t only sell arms to dictators, we also invite them and their contemporaries to Royal Weddings.  Its like Greenpeace inviting former BP head Tony Hayward to its Christmas party.  At the eleventh hour the Syrian ambassador has had his invitation withdrawn due to the ongoing state sponsored violence taking place in Syria, but representatives from Bahrain and other Middle East governments will still be in attendance to fly the flag for despotism.

The Royal Wedding is not an official state event and as such there are no official rules or conventions on who should be invited.  Therefore extending an invitation to representatives of unsavoury regimes is indefensible.  The counter argument to this is that the wedding should avoid becoming politicised or influenced by current affairs.  But the guest list has been openly politicised already; former Prime Ministers have been invited based upon partisan association.  Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both former labour Prime Ministers have not received an invitation; unlike former Conservative PMs Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

The monarchy is anti-democratic.  The current Queen and future King of Great Britain have no democratic mandate to be Head of State, having been neither elected nor appointed by the people that they supposedly represent.  In fact, numerous despots from around the globe such as Robert Mugabe and Colonel Gaddaffi can at least claim that a portion of their populations have voted for them at some point.  It’s a terribly poor mandate with little or no legitimacy, but its more than the  British monarchy can claim.

The British monarch may have limited actual power, but they are still the head of the British state and play a central role in its constitution.  It seems contradictory that a nation can claim to be democratic and conduct military operations overseas to ‘spread’ democracy yet persists in having an unelected head of state.  It’s incredibly hypocritical; any organisation that has as its head a person that goes against its fundamental principles should not be taken seriously. 

The Royal Wedding is anti-meritocratic.  William Windsor will be the next king of Great Britain because of his parentage, not his achievements, qualifications or suitability for the role.  The medieval concept of hereditary power runs contrary to the notion that Britain is, ostensibly, a meritocratic nation.  The Royal Wedding is ultimately a celebration of privilege and how by marrying Prince William, Kate Middleton and any future children stand to inherit incredible opportunity for generations to come.

The wedding is also anti-meritocratic for its propagation of the myth that Kate Middleton is ‘normal’ or ‘one of us’.  I won’t attempt to define what ‘normal’ actually means in modern Britain, but it’s worth considering the educational history of Kate Middleton.  Those born to parents in professional occupations are 60% more likely to go to university in the UK.  Kate Middleton attended private school, something only done so by 7% of the British population.  This in turn increased the chances of attending prestigious university such as St Andrews which takes approximately 40% of its intake from private schools. Those attending state school therefore face a significant challenge in winning a place at universities such as St Andrews and having the opportunity to romp around with a prince.   

Kate Middleton hasn’t had a proper job since 2006, other than working for her millionaire parents' mail order company.  A good life for those that can get it, though again, not particularly meritocratic.  The idea that she is normal, and therefore it could happen to you or your friends or family, is not only laughable but damaging.  It reinforces the sexist message that the only true way for women to achieve social mobility is by marrying a prince, or more latterly, a wealthy footballer.

The wedding has sadly also overshadowed the ongoing debate on electoral reform.  Admittedly electoral reform is a dry subject compared to the glamour of a wedding, yet the former is infinitely more important as it is a chance to make Britain more democratic. That such a frivolous spectacle should find greater traction with the British people is not only sad, but reveals the worrying prevalence of deference in Britain.  We’re prepared to celebrate the marriage of our ‘betters’, yet when offered more democratic control over government we’re simply not interested.

The most spurious claim in defence of the wedding and the Royal family is their supposed economic benefit;  they attract tourists providing a major boost to our economy.  There is a clear economic benefit from such occasions and the Monarchy in general, but the same can be said of the legalisation of Heroin.  Just because something makes money, doesn’t make it right.  Strangely, the palace of Versailles still attracts thousands of tourists each year, despite the fact that France has been a republic for the best of part of the last 220 years following the beheading of its monarchy. 

Is Britain a meritocracy?

Britain is a nation in which desire and talent are simply not enough to get ahead

As the most severe cuts to public services in living memory begin to bite it is worth considering the wider impact that these may have.  As a rule these cuts will hit the least advantaged members of society hardest and this raises a crucial question about how meritocratic Britain really is.  Despite the cuts does Britain offer equality of opportunity to all and does everyone in Britain have an equal chance of success?

Simply, a meritocracy is a society in which achievement and reward is based on merit – hard work, skills, drive – rather than privilege.  A meritocratic society is desirable as it is fair and does not lead to those born into privilege achieving more than an equally talented individual born into poverty and deprivation.  A true meritocracy provides equality of opportunity, an individual’s chances of success are not predetermined at birth.  

A recent article by John Harris in the Guardian noted that the growing trend of the privately educated ‘taking over’ popular culture.  It makes interesting reading as did the BBC documentary ‘getting on’, which focussed on the cycle of achievement of those that were privately educated getting the best degrees, then the best jobs and ultimately sending their children to private school, thus continuing the cycle.

What’s illuminating is the response of Dominic West (from The Wire) who responded to a question regarding his private school background by noting that it no longer mattered as we now live in a meritocracy.  This comment inferred that no advantage had been gained by his private education and that anyone else in Britain had the opportunity to rise to his place of success.

 A cursory glance around Britain today would reveal this to be patently not the case.  Private education offers untold benefits in terms of contacts, reputation and knowledge (such as university admissions procedures) and those that attend it are likely to be more successful than an equally talented individual that attends a struggling state school.

From the cabinet, to the judiciary, to the civil service, the BBC, Fleet Street, be it leading universities or the UK pop charts; a clear and self evident pattern emerges.  There is a distinct absence or under representation of ethnic minorities and those from the poorest backgrounds, yet a significant over representation of Oxbridge graduates and those that attended private school.  If Britain were a meritocratic society this may occur in some sectors and industries; that it occurs in all of those where power and wealth are concentrated is damning. 

 In theory a truly meritocratic society would reflect the society of which it is comprised.  Only 7% of the British population attends private education, approximately 15% of the population are of an ethnic background other than ‘white British’.  In a society in which social class and background present no disadvantage and success in life is a result of ability alone, it would be natural to expect that these trends reflected across society.   

The issue is fairness; no child chooses to be born into poverty or attend poor performing schools.  No amount of desire to succeed can overcome obstacles such as a culture of anti-intellectualism, being given little or no advice on how to access the best universities or being unable to take up an internship as your parents are unable to assist with your living costs.  

No child chooses their parents yet research indicates that a parent’s educational experience and level of affluence are the leading factors in shaping their own children’s experience.  That the likes of Alan Sugar et al have risen from modest or challenging backgrounds to become very successful is clear evidence of a lack of social mobility, not evidence of its presence; their success only serves to emphasise that many, many, thousands have been unable to achieve this. 

Equality of opportunity barely stretches to include both genders, even before different ethnicities and social classes are considered.  The problem is a fundamental challenge within society.  If Britain is not a meritocracy, how far is it from achieving this?  More pertinently, how can equality of opportunity be increased?  

The answer is a long way; it may be comforting to tell ourselves that inherited privilege is not a deciding factor in our chances of success, but that would be disingenuous.  

One approach could be to ban the provision of private education thus removing the cycle of advantage and privilege that they propagate.  However parents with the financial ability and knowledge could simply move house into the catchment area of a successful state school.  Tackling poverty would perhaps be the answer, but thirteen years of New Labour and their ostensible commitment to improving social mobility and reducing child poverty has had little or no impact.  Universities have also been targeted; a lack of Black undergraduates was used to illustrate potential bias in the admission process; the University of Oxford simply pointed out that if black students aren’t achieving the entry grades required there is little they can do.

Tackling this issue is unlikely to be achieved by instigating a series of disconnected (though well intentioned) schemes and initiatives, such as the Pupil Premium and national scholarship fund for university.  However if the solution requires a more holistic and radical approach what can be done?  A huge part of the problem is attitudes and beliefs, inherited privilege is still accepted as normal and concepts of class still shape attitudes, beliefs and prejudices.

A greater redistribution of wealth could perhaps prevent poverty blighting the chances of young people before they have even set foot in school, but the 50% tax rate for higher earners is still seen as controversial and ‘anti-aspirational’.  

That this more progressive tax is so hard to sell to the electorate, yet the rise in tuition fees and the axing of the Educational Maintenance Allowance so easy, must lead to the conclusion that there is sadly, no real appetite for meaningful change.

This article appears in the March edition of the Young Political Bloggers e-magazine.