Monarchy and Democracy

[Traitorfish]

Simple question: Is a liberal democracy ideologically compatible with an institution of monarchy? There's more than enough examples to demonstrate that the two can function side by side, of course, and yet it seems to me that very few people would, if asked to draw up a model liberal constitution, chose to involve this particular form of institution. It seems for most people be counter-intuitive to on the one hand adopt the universalist principals of liberal democracy, and on the other preserving as explicitly exclusive and specific office as this. The existence of such institutions, then, would appear to be an historical relic, rather than an ideologically integrated facet of a liberal democratic system of government.

Is it entirely compatible, and I'm just being dense? Is it basically incompatible, and their current co-existent is a blatant contradiction? Or does it depend too heavily on the details any given instance to generalise?

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think it being an accident of history necessarily means that they're incompatible. I would've thought that them functioning together, as you say, indicates that they aren't entirely incompatible. Even if mixing the two is not ideal, incompatibility is still a few steps away. I guess a lot of the ideas of the two systems are contradictory, but I would define compatibility as more to do with functionality.

 

[Verbose]

I'd say, the actual contradictory bits all tend to crop up in situation of the royals themselves. Everything else about society can be reformed just fine. It still leaves the royals, even if 100% powerless figuregheads, in a situation where the rights and freedoms of every other citizen just cannot quite be applied.

The Royal Uterus and its outpouring is still going to be a public concern for instance, which it most assuredly is not for any other member of society. Or whether the Royal Rod is actually up for it, and we can expect an heir sometime. The royals, unlike everyone else, get stuck with a dynastic logic dictating their lives, and most of that logic hinges on something very similar to that art of breeding prize-winning pigs.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Monarchy's value derives from its symbol of continuity - the lineage goes back as far as one can remember. They are removed from power, and operate as a means to keep everyone united. Tourism often outpaces whatever budget they're on.

You wouldn't have that same magic if a monarchy was built today, so no new monarchies are built.

It's just a tradition that benefits national identity, which is why it's kept in so many liberal democracies.

A better question, I feel is, "are anti-nationalism and monarchy compatible?" There is no monarch of Europe, Asia, or even the world. They'd lose their value in an anti-nationalist union...

 

[Ayn Rand]

I say yes. I like the fact that our army and police swear loyalty to the Queen. Could you imagine anything worse than the army marching through London and saluting people like Tony Blair instead? It would give him funny ideas - so it's no accident that we have such a long and stable tradition of democracy. Surely clarity of hierarchy - with the highest position being a constitutional non-entity - keeps the State functioning smoothly?

 

[Benefactor]

I don't really find them incompatible, although as others have said, it would be pretty futile to try and establish a new one when founding a new country. So long as they keep there mouth relatively shut they provide a nice non-partisan symbol of national unity and blah blah blah.

 

[ArneHD]

They are compatible, but as you noted, they rarely occur by themselves, being more often a historical relic most of the time. Then again, a monarchy serves the same function as any other national symbol or myth. They serve to give a nation a sense of coherence and stability. A thing to point to and say "You see that thing there? That thing makes us a nation together."

 

[Winner]

Why not? Liberal democracies build national symbolism just as eagerly as other regimes (just look at America). Monarchs' role in some of today's democracies is to provide a personified symbol of the state with which the people can identify (on some level). I'd even say this is better than having elected heads of state, since they are appointed for political reasons whereas monarchs are supposed to be above everyday politics. This makes them more legitimate as the kind of symbol I am talking about.

And yes, I wish my country restored the monarchy.

 

[NiRv4n4]

Yeah, the monarchy gives the people someone they can respect; nowadays, that certainly won't be those in charge of the government. Plus, monarchs are supposed to be non-partisan, someone all but the most extreme political groups can appreciate.

And yes, I wish my country restored the monarchy.

Indeed, it's a shame that over 40 years of Soviet rule has made that nigh impossible for Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, etc.

 

[Winner]

Indeed, it's a shame that over 40 years of Soviet rule has made that nigh impossible for Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, etc.

Not here, Czechia (Czechoslovakia) was anti-monarchist even before WW2 and the Communist coup. Our role models were France and the United States, if you can believe it.

 

[mayor]

Yes, the governmental system here in The Netherlands (and several other countries I'm to lazy to remember all) proof it.

If it is desirable... imo not

 

[Cutlass]

As long as all the kings and lords shut up and get the hell out of the way, I suppose it could work. But I can't see any way that it wouldn't work better if they were gone altogether.

 

[Arwon]

Only if you neuter monarchs from ever doing anything.

The constitutional monarchies of places like the UK and Australia demonstrate that they are incompatible, because the liberal democracy has to effectively remove the monarch almost utterly, in order to even make a liberal democracy. Our monarchs don't -arch, the fact that they haven't been entirely eliminated is a testament to institutional inertia, not anything ideologically democratic about monarchy.

 

[mayor]

sorry I have a hard time following this.... could you refrase it?

EDIT: Ninja'd.. post directed at Cutlass

also: 1,000 Posts -> EDIT: wait.. I thought OT didn't count posts??

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I don't exactly see how the two are compatible if one of them needs to be neutered into a mere figurehead for the other to work.

 

[Cutlass]

sorry I have a hard time following this.... could you refrase it?

EDIT: Ninja'd.. post directed at Cutlass

also: 1,000 Posts -> EDIT: wait.. I thought OT didn't count posts??

As far as I'm concerned, I want all monarchs and aristocrats gone. But as a secondary goal, neutered. As long as they have no position in government, and don't matter in any way except culturally, then letting them live and retain their titles is, marginally, acceptable.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Only if you neuter monarchs

This.

Overthrow their political power, then make them sit down and shut up.

 

[mayor]

As far as I'm concerned, I want all monarchs and aristocrats gone. But as a secondary goal, neutered. As long as they have no position in government, and don't matter in any way except culturally, then letting them live and retain their titles is, marginally, acceptable.

well, that I understood I was refering to the bolded part

As long as all the kings and lords shut up and get the hell out of the way, I suppose it could work. But I can't see any way that it wouldn't work better if they were gone altogether.

sorry if I'm a bit slow... I'm trying to figure out if we're on the same page...

Reading your last post I think we are (besides neutering that is ;P)

 

[Cutlass]

well, that I understood I was refering to the bolded part



sorry if I'm a bit slow... I'm trying to figure out if we're on the same page...

Reading your last post I think we are (besides neutering that is ;P)

To put it simpler, I consider them an obstacle. And, as such, if they were gone, that would benefit everyone. But short of them being gone, I would simply cut them adrift, and let them fend for themselves with no more power or influence than any other citizen. I would under no circumstances allow them to have a hereditary position in government.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Elective monarchy?