COMMENT | Whatever one may say about Tunku Abdul Rahman’s political legacy, which must include his suspension of local elections in 1965 and his crushing of Sabah and Sarawak’s autonomy advocates in Malaysia’s infant years, the prince is a true believer of constitutional monarchy.

While Malay monarchies have their root in the Hindu concept of ‘dewa raja’ (divine king), their function in the modern nation-state of Malaysia are modelled on the Westminster system and their presence justified in the same vein.

From the standpoint of democracy, retaining hereditary monarchy is not entirely unproblematic. After all, since core in the idea of democracy is political inequality, why should the head of state be chosen by way of “genetic lottery”? What quality in national leadership does a royal bloodline guarantee?

The direct alternative to the British-style monarchy with parliamentary government is of course the American-model presidentialism, which emerged by the late 18th century. By the 19th century, parliamentary republic emerged as another alternative.

Probably the most influential British constitutional thinker, Walter Bagehot, offered an insightful framework to compare the British and American political system to demonstrate the superiority of constitutional monarchy.

Bagehot argues that English institutions can be separated into two sets: the dignified parts which “excites and preserves the reverence of the population” and the efficient parts by which the government “works and rules”.

The monarchy is at the apex of the dignified part while the prime minister is the head of the efficient parts. In such a constitutional monarchy, the head of state and the head of government are distinct and separate by definition.

Such division of labour allows on one hand the government to be run by politicians who are necessarily partisan because of representative democracy, and, on the other hand the state to stay inclusive to be embraced all the citizens.

When a government becomes unpopular, it can be dismissed by the electorate while the Crown continues to be loved by the subjects who may hate each other because of partisanship. The monarchy is in that sense the true symbol of national unity.

Such luxury is not available in the American presidentialism. As virtually an “elected monarch”, the president is both head of the state and head of the government. It becomes humanly difficult for a citizen to love the president as the uniting head of state while hating her as the partisan head of government.

Bagehot’s insight is all the more obvious when we look at polarising presidents in the United States like George W Bush and Donald Trump.

In fact, some political scientists have argued against the divisive nature of presidentialism - which is more winner-takes-all than parliamentarianism - in other countries with weaker democratic political culture...