Is monarchy the best model for the Middle East?

Traitorfish · Dec 5, 2014

Kaiserguard said:
No, I am not appealing to antiquity. Implicitly I argued that clan identity and monarchy are elements of the pre-individualist world order. Since you misidentified it as simple appeal to antiquity, I will now restate it explicitly: While such institutions can and do occasionally clash with each other (just as churches and monarchs do), they are also fundamentally incompatible with modern democracy. Both institutions nourish a cultural identity fundamentally different from modern democracy. In that respect, the two work together against hyperindividualism.

I'm not sure how this differs from an appeal to antiquity, except to crowbar in your antiomodernist hobby-horse. There's still no explanation, in any of this, no mechanics, just the sweeping statement that both originate in a pre-modern age and therefore, in some way, by some means, by some secret alchemy, represent part of a corporate whole.

Mouthwash · Dec 6, 2014

Well, democracy is designed around the individual vote, correct?

James Stuart · Dec 6, 2014

Mouthwash said:
Well, democracy is designed around the individual vote, correct?

Why would that be incompatible with a clan structure? India has democracy with a caste system, which a lot more delineated and difficult to transcend. I already mentioned Sardinia and Corsica, which have clan systems, yet are part of democratic societies.

Even if all members of clan do vote exactly the same, is that really any different from children voting the same as their parents? It's just on a larger scale. And assuming that clansmen elect their clan leaders as their representatives, they're still exercising their democratic rights. The only difference is they're choosing by clan, and not by political party, race, social status, etc., as we do in the West.

Tahuti · Dec 6, 2014

James Stuart said:
India has democracy with a caste system, which a lot more delineated and difficult to transcend.

Which is why India does its best to eradicate it entirely. The premise of modern democracy is every individual constitutes a social atom. Institutions like churches, monarchies and clans - while these may not be unified at all times - all have in common that they have an underlying premise (in organic communities) that outright contradict the premises of modern democracy.

James Stuart · Dec 6, 2014

Kaiserguard said:
Which is why India does its best to eradicate it entirely. The premise of modern democracy is every individual constitutes a social atom. Institutions like churches, monarchies and clans - while these may not be unified at all times - all have in common that they have an underlying premise (in organic communities) that outright contradict the premises of modern democracy.

Of course they don't. All institutions that take away any form of liberty at all can be described as anti-democratic, but that is a list that ranges from clans, to monarchies, to churches, to families, to sports clubs, to sewing circles. Humans are social beings, and it is impossible to entirely separate the individual from their society.

To say that a clan is less of an impediment to democracy than political parties, for example, is ludicrous. And political parties are as organic a political development as is possible, since they didn't exist before democracies were established in many countries. My own, Australia, is a great example; the current political duopoly wasn't cemented until the 1970s, and developed very organically, in a country that had universal suffrage very early.

And India, despite a few public announcements here and there, really doesn't do anything to eliminate the caste system. At most, it no longer has legal status, but it is still culturally predominant.

You also still haven't answered TF's question.

Tahuti · Dec 6, 2014

James Stuart said:
Of course they don't. All institutions that take away any form of liberty at all can be described as anti-democratic, but that is a list that ranges from clans, to monarchies, to churches, to families, to sports clubs, to sewing circles. Humans are social beings, and it is impossible to entirely separate the individual from their society.

Thank you for giving an argument why democracy doesn't work in practice.

James Stuart said:
To say that a clan is less of an impediment to democracy than political parties, for example, is ludicrous.

Probably a typo, since I absolutely agree with this.

James Stuart said:
And political parties are as organic a political development as is possible, since they didn't exist before democracies were established in many countries. My own, Australia, is a great example; the current political duopoly wasn't cemented until the 1970s, and developed very organically, in a country that had universal suffrage very early.

Political parties (party duopolys) are actually older than democracies. The Netherlands had the States' faction versus the Orangist faction, with today's Liberal, Nationalist and Social democratic parties being the spiritual successors of the States' faction and the Christian parties being the spiritual successor of the latter. However, until the late 20th century, political parties could count near-certain support along sub-cultural lines which to a certain extent kept democracy in check - to the point that conservatives supported universal suffrage for tactical reasons as franchise restrictions. Somewhere in the 1960s, parties stopped having the subcultural appeal they had, and became progressively more dependent on swing voters.

Basically, society had become more individualised by then.

James Stuart · Dec 6, 2014

Kaiserguard said:
Thank you for giving an argument why democracy doesn't work in practice.

Hey, if you want to scrap democracy, I'm all for it. I am descended from the rightful rulers of the UK, after all. Theiving Dutch.

Kaiserguard said:
Probably a typo, since I absolutely agree with this.

You said clans were anti-democratic. Democracy always results in political parties. I fail to see how anything can be considered democratic if you don't allow for factions. Humans form them by choice.

Kaiserguard said:
Political parties (party duopolys) are actually older than democracies.

Oh, I'm well aware of this. Rome had its factions, as did Athens. Og, Caveman Emperor, no doubt had to balance the factions in his cave to keep Throgg the Mammoth-slayer from seizing his crown of sabre-teeth. My point is that democracies lead to the formation of political parties even if they don't exist beforehand; it is human nature to group together, and even so-called Independents often form loose blocs of alliances, whether with each other or with major parties.

Traitorfish · Dec 6, 2014

Mouthwash said:
Well, democracy is designed around the individual vote, correct?

It depends. Before the twentieth century, it was usually assumed that electors voted on behalf of their dependants, including not just their family but also servants or apprentices. For these people, the basic unit of society was the household, not the individual, and it followed for them that government was a way of organising the relationship between households rather than individuals; Kaiserguard's direct identification of electoral democracy and individualism is, quite franky, ahistorical garbage.

James Stuart · Dec 6, 2014

Traitorfish said:
It depends. Before the twentieth century, it was usually assumed that electors voted on behalf of their dependants, including not just their family but also servants or apprentices. For these people, the basic unit of society was the household, not the individual, and it followed for them that government was a way of organising the relationship between households rather than individuals; Kaiserguard's direct identification of electoral democracy and individualism is, quite franky, ahistorical garbage.

We still have that system; it is assumed that adults are voting on behalf of the children in their households, for example, and they usually are. I probably vote differently now that I'm a father than I would if I were not (well, I'd probably still be voting for the same people, but that's simply because we have such an ironed on system out here).

Then there's the simple fact that we live in representative democracies, where our elected officials are intended to represent us. You might be able to make an argument that Switzerland has a more democratic system, but the rest of us are stuck in ancient Rome.

Tahuti · Dec 7, 2014

Traitorfish said:
It depends. Before the twentieth century, it was usually assumed that electors voted on behalf of their dependants, including not just their family but also servants or apprentices. For these people, the basic unit of society was the household, not the individual, and it followed for them that government was a way of organising the relationship between households rather than individuals

Voting franchise had little connection to individualism if anything. The French revolution promoted individualism, yet still restricted the rights of men (and voting franchise) to adult male individuals. That they may have led families was of no consequence, since females were not understood to be fully mentally capable to begin with.

James Stuart said:
You said clans were anti-democratic. Democracy always results in political parties. I fail to see how anything can be considered democratic if you don't allow for factions. Humans form them by choice.

Clans are made by an entirely different process than political parties: Clans are made through kinship, and the leader of such a clan often arises by seniority within the kin. Political parties may be formed around clan lines as well, though such may also be formed by common economic and/or political interest, totally unrelated to kinship.

James Stuart · Dec 7, 2014

Kaiserguard said:
Voting franchise had little connection to individualism if anything. The French revolution promoted individualism, yet still restricted the rights of men (and voting franchise) to adult male individuals. That they may have led families was of no consequence, since females were not understood to be fully mentally capable to begin with.

Clans are made by an entirely different process than political parties: Clans are made through kinship, and the leader of such a clan often arises by seniority within the kin. Political parties may be formed around clan lines as well, though such may also be formed by common economic and/or political interest, totally unrelated to kinship.

Clans are often adoptive, so that doesn't pan out.

Louis XXIV · Dec 7, 2014

Kaiserguard said:
Voting franchise had little connection to individualism if anything. The French revolution promoted individualism, yet still restricted the rights of men (and voting franchise) to adult male individuals. That they may have led families was of no consequence, since females were not understood to be fully mentally capable to begin with.

Is that really saying that it has little connection with individualism or that the French Revolution didn't fully live up to its goals?

Domen · Dec 7, 2014

It is sometimes claimed that ethnic nationalism emerged during the French Revolution. However, I consider this incorrect - in my opinion ethnic nationalism existed long before the French Revolution, while what emerged during that revolution was civic nationalism*. Let's remember that France prior to the Revolution was a multi-ethnic country with ethnic French people (i.e. speakers of French language) being just over 50% of the total population. Yet France did not fragment itself into several nation-states along ethno-linguistic boundaries, but remained unified, developing common French identity (even if separatists existed).

As the result, France is now the third largest country in Europe (after Russia and Ukraine). "Ethnic France" would have been smaller.

================================

*We can claim that it emerged during the Enlightenment in general, and was implemented in France, but also for example in the USA, in Italy, etc.

Tahuti · Dec 7, 2014

Domen said:
It is sometimes claimed that ethnic nationalism emerged during the French Revolution. However, I consider this incorrect - in my opinion ethnic nationalism existed long before the French Revolution, while what emerged during that revolution was civic nationalism*. Let's remember that France prior to the Revolution was a multi-ethnic country with ethnic French people (i.e. speakers of French language) being just over 50% of the total population. Yet France did not fragment itself into several nation-states along ethno-linguistic boundaries, but remained unified, developing common French identity (even if separatists existed).

As the result, France is now the third largest country in Europe (after Russia and Ukraine). "Ethnic France" would have been smaller.

================================

*We can claim that it emerged during the Enlightenment in general, and was implemented in France, but also for example in the USA, in Italy, etc.

Nationalism defined as the idea that political entities should be congruent to a nation, whether Ethnic, Religious, Civic, whatever, is a by-product of the French revolution. The Most Christian Kingdom of France operated on something that could best be labelled multiculturalism avant la lettre. However, this Pre-Nationalist condition of multiculturalism didn't have a name, since cultural communities were so insular they did not really were preoccupied with cultural differences, nor was there any demand to ideologicalise intercultural issues as well conceptualise something that was always there as is the case ever since the 1960s. Starting with the French revolution and ending with decolonisation - and the subsequent immigration to Europe from former European colonies - arguably constituted the golden age of the democratic nation-state.

Domen · Dec 7, 2014

Kaiserguard said:
Nationalism defined as the idea that political entities should be congruent to a nation, whether Ethnic, Religious, Civic, whatever, is a by-product of the French revolution.

In my opinion, not really. This idea is much older. For example Jan Ostroróg (1436-1501) in his "Monumentum pro Reipublicae Ordinatione Congestum" ("Treatise on Improving the Republic"), published in year 1475, wrote that every foreign immigrant who comes to Poland, should learn to speak Polish (how would you call this statement by Ostroróg, if not "the idea that political entities should be congruent to a nation, whether Ethnic, Religious, Civic" ??? :confused:

).

Here is the excerpt of Ostroróg's treatise in question (at first original Latin text, then English translation):

In English:

"XXII. About Sermons in the German Language:

Oh what an ungracious and hideous thing for the Poles, that in many places in our churches sermons are given in German language, and this takes place in a lofty and magnificent setting, where only one or two old women listen to them, while at the same time the crowds of Poles are squeezed somewhere in the corner with their preacher. And because nature itself implanted eternal discord and hatred between these two languages (as well as in some other aspects), I exhort you not to say the mass in German. Let the one who wants to live in Poland learn to speak Polish! Unless we are such simpletons that we forget that the Germans treat our language in a similar fashion in their country. And if, after all, such sermons are needed for the foreign immigrants, let them take place somewhere in secluded spots, without damage to the dignity of the Poles."

That was written over 300 years before the French Revolution. And I saw more similar texts from the Middle Ages and earlier, not just from Poland.

Kaiserguard said:
since cultural communities were so insular they did not really were preoccupied with cultural differences

I don't know enough about Old France to argue with this.

But in Old Poland at least some of ethno-cultural communities were, to at least some extent, preoccupied with differences.

As you can see, for example, in the treatise I cited above.

Domen · Dec 7, 2014

Another excerpt from the same treatise (remember: it was published in year 1475):

Original text in Latin and below it English translation:

"XX. About Enrolling Monks to the Monasteries.

Lords ruling the Republic! How feeble-minded are you, that until this day you have tolerated the fact, that from monasteries - dowered with land and income by our ancestors, built on Polish soil and with its crops fed by the Poles - they are excluding our kinsmen and not allowing them to join the convents; and this only because they are bound by an act of law, which tells them to enroll only Germans to the convent. This act of law is ridiculous and contrary to church laws. Because who dares to impose such a yoke upon the sovereign Kingdom of Poland - the King of which does not recognize the lordship of anyone above him - under the false guise of an act of law? You, brave men - if you want to be considered brave - must stop allowing the Germans - and especially these boorish and effeminate monks - to make fun of the Polish nation, and to deceive it with their bogus piety."

I'm not sure if he refers to all monasteries or just to some monasteries (perhaps just to some of them, because not all recruited only Germans).

Here you can find the entire Treatise (bilingual edition, in Latin and in Polish):

http://mbc.cyfrowemazowsze.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=3481&from=FBC

============================

Kaiserguard said:
The Most Christian Kingdom of France operated on something that could best be labelled multiculturalism avant la lettre.

Multicultural spirit in France dates back already to Roman times, when lots of people of many ethnic groups immigrated to Gaul.

However, there has always been some emphasize on common language. In Roman times that language was of course Latin.

After the Frankish Empire split into three parts, in West Francia there gradually emerged emphasize on French language.

French also became the language of the Duchy of Normandy, so that in 1066 most of conquerors of England spoke French.

James Stuart · Dec 7, 2014

Great, charts and graphs boy from my 8th Grade IT class just found the thread.

Tee Kay · Dec 8, 2014

Too bad we don't have a rep system here. I wanna rep you.

James Stuart · Dec 8, 2014

taillesskangaru said:
Too bad we don't have a rep system here. I wanna rep you.

In lieu of rep, please donate to my favourite charity, the James Stuart Pork Ribs Fund. PM me for payment details.

Tahuti · Dec 8, 2014

The epitaph of this thread should read: "Indeed, it is best model for all of the world."

Is monarchy the best model for the Middle East?

The Tighnahulish Kid

Escaped Lunatic

King

Writing Deity

King

Writing Deity

King

The Tighnahulish Kid

King

Writing Deity

King

Le Roi Soleil

Misico dux Vandalorum

Writing Deity

Misico dux Vandalorum

Misico dux Vandalorum

King

Three days sober

King

Writing Deity

Similar threads