Shai Hulud

It's an argument that I've heard before. But frankly, it's a fresh, steaming load of bovine waste products.
Belgium has a monarchy, and I can assure you that our current and future king are barely competent to take responsibility for the toilets.
The system has no place in any democracy. They gain power, wealth and influence they should not have. In Belgium there are several examples of abuse of the power they shouldn't even have. One example lead to the demise of our national airlines (although it wasn't the only cause).

Shai-Hulud

johngalt

A monarchy is just a step backwards in the evolution of politics. I wouldn't want to have the same guy in power for 30+ years and not be able to get rid of him without killing him.

leonarde

(note: except for the post immediately following the OP, I've purposely avoided reading reactions since I think that might unduly influence part II of my explication):

PART II

So what do we make of the above?

15) Monarchies of one sort or another seem to come about 'naturally' (ie to the extent that human self-organization can be called 'natural'). That is, most effective political parties/military formations have hierarchical structures which at their apex have: a 'monarch'.

16) Usually the person who becomes 'Grand Duke', 'King' , 'Emperor', 'General Secretary', 'Il Duce', etc. does have some extraordinary ability or abilities (the ability to organize and an iron will; a silvery tongue and/or a hypnotic persona; a theory/ideology which he has invented or coopted and which is attractive to at least a galvanized minority; military acumen etc.)

17) The biggest trouble such de facto monarchies have is: succession. For there is no way to guarantee that the successor, even if a direct biological descendant of the original 'monarch', will have the right quality or qualities to continue the dynasty.

18) Seldom are strong rulers deposed directly by the populace:
Julius Caesar was assasinated; Napoleon was twice defeated by foreign armies; ditto with Hitler, Mussolini ; whatever the true circumstances of Stalin's death, he enjoyed 31 years of uninterrupted rule as General Secretary etc. Their 'line' ends instead when a successor blunders badly in a (sometimes new) situation.

19) Yet none of the above (and few de facto 'monarchs' outside an established 'House') have been succeeded by a son or daughter. Why? Because there is no fixed formula of what a 'monarch' should 'have'; would-be successors frequently are detached and uninterested in ruling. Even so, the system (as opposed to the 'House' or dynasty) can frequently churn out/select a new 'monarch' (General Secretary etc.)

19) Non-monarchies, by contrast, are weakest precisely where monarchies are strongest: stability/continuity. Each parliamentary election contains within it the possibility of overturning the policies, no matter how apparently satisfactory, of the recent past. Indeed that (plus potential affirmation of the existing policies) can be fairly be called the purpose of the elections. This is least pernicious when there is a strong sense of national identity: a culturally rather homogeneous population.

20) When the usual political infighting reaches toxic levels (say, during Watergate) this has a particularly destabilizing effect on the nation: for the President is the head of state as well as the head of the government. As one or more person noted during the worst days of Watergate, had the US had a parliamentary system, a president like Nixon would have been out of office 6 to 18 months earlier.

21) In sum, such parliamentary systems are more responsive to the immediate demands of the populace (a popularity of the moment) but produce disjunctures in rule. This is most evident in post-WWII Italy where the governments have changed with dizzying rapidity, caused in part by the astounding number of political parties. Italy tends to lurch toward anarchism.

22) Therefore in the modern world, the best 'system' is a limited (ie constitutional) monarchy : it gives the nation-state a living symbol of sovereignty, one who can sometimes intervene in times of direst need (eg it was the King of Italy who turned against Mussolini and encouraged his deposition until a German rescue/restoration) but who allows the parliament/government to set policies and take the heat for those policies.

Cheers!

Evangelion

That one from The Scotsman was absolutely priceless!

Hubble head

I'll go again since my day actually turned out slow.

I see now that you are not high, but I think you are hallucinating somewhat nonetheless.

I agree some with your "natural process" premise. Without knowledge of what can be, a Monarchy is the easiest possible answer for those who do not know another way. Since it�s such a simple system -I rule, you all follow, there is little question regarding semantics.

But what you propose is more a democratic state with a monarchal overseeing figurehead.

Multiples of political parties are supposed to bring the continuity for their viewpoint of the Govt. Frequent elections are supposed to prevent one person's POV from doing to much damage or abuse to the system while they are in.

Unfortunately, the media here protects both the dems and repubs to such a degree that no other party is allowed to get any real coverage. We really do seem closer to an alternating monarchy than a democracy and that's outright sad.

John Hancock

leonarde
I was thought you should be hung for treason against democracy, please excuse me you should be hung for the murder of logic.

Martin

Alan G

17) The biggest trouble such de facto monarchies have is: succession. For there is no way to guarantee that the successor, even if a direct biological descendant of the original 'monarch', will have the right quality or qualities to continue the dynasty.

which kind of nullifies all your arguements about choosing a monarch based on their qualities


18) Seldom are strong rulers deposed directly by the populace:
Julius Caesar was assasinated; Napoleon was twice defeated by foreign armies; ditto with Hitler, Mussolini ; whatever the true circumstances of Stalin's death, he enjoyed 31 years of uninterrupted rule as General Secretary etc. Their 'line' ends instead when a successor blunders badly in a (sometimes new) situation.

generally the populace dont have control over armies/police, whearas the monarchs/leaders do...


22) Therefore in the modern world, the best 'system' is a limited (ie constitutional) monarchy : it gives the nation-state a living symbol of sovereignty, one who can sometimes intervene in times of direst need (eg it was the King of Italy who turned against Mussolini and encouraged his deposition until a German rescue/restoration) but who allows the parliament/government to set policies and take the heat for those policies.


You haven't given any great reasons for a monarch, merely some reasons to have a leader, which does not specifically mean a monarch or elected president/prime minister

Misso

Yes, if he (or she) is an idiot and/or psycopath. How many times has that happened? In cases like this there's the option of passing the rights to the throne on to another child, or even to someone further off in the bloodline. And there are advisors and civil servants that might dull the sharp edges of the king's possibly insanity (as are there in a presidential/parliamentary democracy and basically any political system).

The factor of selvishness isn't to be blamed on monarchy but on the absense of Trias Politica. In a democratic system without Trias Politica, the ones in power would behave excactly like kings, untill they are voted off in the next election (if elections haven't been abolished by then).


Well, yeah, Belgium...
In the Netherlands there is a monarchy too, and the current Queen and her son are more competent than our prime-minister.
There are always voices that say that Dutch monarchy should be abolished in favour of a presidential system, one arguement is always that it costs so much. It has been calculated, however, that the net costs of (Dutch) monarchy are less than those of a presidential system. Yes, the monarchy lives off taxes, but so does a president, and a president would most likely not be so stimulating for our export whenever a state-visit took place.


I am against an absolute monarchy, but I like a constitutional monarchy. It gives identity to a country and it's just nice to have. What was it again, bread and games? About a third of the total population watched the wedding of our crown-prince. Who watched George W. Bush's wedding?
I also believe that monarchy does provide stability in the political system and (at least in Dutch monarchy) competence in any decisions taken by the King or Queen.

Incidentally, some people do like absolute monarchy better than democracy. The people of Liechtenstein recently voted for substantially more power to their Prince and less power to their democratic parliament.

Shai Hulud

Unfortunately that seems to happen quite often.

Well, yeah, Harry Potter
It's an unusual situation right now. Belgians simply expect things to work better in the Netherlands, and we're still trying to cope with the new situation

Allow me to question the calculation. And even if it were true, I'd be happy (sort of) to spend the extra money the get rid of our monarchy.

Two remarks.
One. I think the lowest form of life on this planet is a royalty watcher.
Two. G.W.Bush wasn't the US president when he got married. If he had his wedding during his term a lot of people would have watched.

I don't really see how. You can't have a real democracy if the King/Queen have any power as they're not elected. If they don't have power their function is only symbolic, and I fail to see how that can provide much stability.

This can be explained in two ways.
- The Prince 'blackmailed' the people by threathening to leave if the vote didn't turn out good for him.
- People are idiots. If there were a vote on the monarchy in Belgium it's quite possible that it would turn out in their favor.

Shai-Hulud

Misso

How often is "quite often"? I haven't heard of a mad king or queen in quite some time.

Second point is good, let me rephrase: how many people would watch the wedding of one of his daughters if it were to happen now?
It wasn't just the wedding of our crown-prince that drew lots of viewers, other members of the royal family (not in the line for thee throne) also got a lot of viewers at their wedding.

A real democracy is virtually unattainable anyway. No democracy to date would score higer than an 7 on a 1-10 scale. But that doesn't matter. The point is not to create a perfect democracy, the point is, as one politician once put it, "to keep things together". The fashion in which this happens is irrelevant - but a constitutional monarchy gets the job done fairly well.

I agree that people are idiots. But the first point just shows that the people of Liechtenstein (over 80% of them anyway) value a monarchy higher than a democracy.