Even weirder in this case, the prime minister (not directly elected by the general populace) appointed an Governor General (not elected at all) to a position with monarchic powers, and that power was used against him.
Having PMs elected by MPs means that it is harder for a single rabble rousing politician to sweep to power and distort the use of, say, the military.
Having Governers General appointed by PMs, and confirmed by the monarch, means that someone outside of politics (usually a well respected figure like a university president or astronaut) holds the final red line about whether or not an election must be called. Since it's via appointment, the monarch doesn't bear the brunt of the public rage for it. And since the monarch must confirm the GG it means that the position can't be stuffed with an obvious political hack.
It jives better than it sounds it would jive. It's like checks and balances with as many arguments and gridlock.
As an aside, I feel the same way about the Notwithstanding Clause[0] of the Canadian Constitution. It's a useful tool to diffuse hard issues that can't be used against the public to stop them from voting or speaking and since it automatically expires after a short, preset time the power is ultimately in the hands of the electorate.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
This seems like only a theoretical red line. If/when the GG does anything against the advice of the PM it's a crisis moment. There was a bit of a media fuss in 2008 but then the GG just did as she was told, no?
I mean that isn’t how it works in the US of course but I was under the impression our system was more unusual. Parliamentary systems seem quite popular.
(In the US it often seems like we’ve got this weird old version of Representative Democracy XP, while most of the rest of the advanced democracies have updated to Representative Democracy 10: Parliamentary Edition. We had a bunch of the original devs on staff, so they wrote a bunch of in-house patches, which let us keep XP running well past EOL, but now it turns out layering on patches like that results in an incredibly fragile system and we can’t update anything without possibly taking down the whole system.)
If you’re only interested in XP’s kernel rather than the rest of it, you’re going to have a bad time.
Likely, if these countries were only just de-colonizing and ratifying constitutions today — where the existence of an intelligence service with global reach, directly reporting to the Sovereign, can be assumed — then the GG appointment for each country would be probably be done directly by the Sovereign, with MI6 analysts doing the nominations and then the countries’ PMs (or trusted delegate cabinet ministers) merely doing recorded interviews for the Sovereign to watch and evaluate.
Is there are practical difference between this description and just saying that the country's PM does the appointment? I guess one test would be what happens if the sovereign decides to override the PM. What happens then?
That being said, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the benefits our current system affords, though there's precisely ZERO reason those functions need to be performed by a monarch. There are other ways to achieve the same results without needing to prop up and pander to the spoilt, entitled children of some long dead yet highly effective murderer.
If we want a single, final, sole, human decision maker I do not see how we can accomplish this without a monarchy that doesn't come with the massive downsides of attracting those that have a lust for power. That the monarchy is essentially toothless in all but the most dire circumstances is a feature not a bug.
It's like the folks in the military that get slated to man the nuclear weapons silos. Very few want the job because they know that they're only need in the very rare circumstance where the whole world is on the line.
It's illiquid power.
As for the rest of it, the holdings, etc. I looked at the Queen as essentially a guardian of nature and an encourager of those in the military, intelligence and of the many charities that exist across The Common Wealth. Yes, she had many fancy dinners, but we got more than what we paid for. Whether encouraging a single little girl to become a doctor when she grows up or slapping a good-hearted wealthy guy on the back when he donates a colossal fortune to helping orphans the return on investment is obvious. Fifteen minutes of her time yielded (and continues to yield) tremendous return.
And then the candidate Prime Minister you (partially) based your decision on might resign, and the MPs of the governing party will pick a new person to exercise those powers, with no recourse to the electorate.
This is not theoretical. In the UK it's happened twice in the last six months.