Monarchy and Democracy

[warpus]

Monarchy and Democracy could be compatible but only if you remove the monarchs as figureheads and force them to get regular jobs. Imagine if the Queen worked as a cashier at Burger King? Now that's what I call compatible!

 

[mayor]

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.

Aaah.. well in that case we agree on the fact that hereditary positions shouldn't be allowed
but you're slightly more... how should I put it.... hostile against them ;P

Elective monarchy?

president?

EDIT:

Monarchy and Democracy could be compatible but only if you remove the monarchs as figureheads and force them to get regular jobs. Imagine if the Queen worked as a cashier at Burger King? Now that's what I call compatible!

Than you wouldn't have a monarchy anymore.... (which I, while I'm typing, think is what you mean..)

on the second

 

[Lone Wolf]

president?

Well, "elective monarchy" usually implies that the monarch is usually for life. Granted, presidents for life are not very democratic.

 

[Traitorfish]

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...

This is a fair argument, but it's an essentially conservative one, in which liberal universalism is not a principle in itself, but a model adopted because it is identified as having some practical utility. So that in itself would seem to imply a certain conception of the liberal democratic state that seems at odds with mainstream liberal thought- or at least rhetoric- or on the matter.

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?

I'm guessing that you've jettisoned your Objectivism since our last encounter, then?

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.

I can understand your argument, but it seems that a significant jump is made between arguing for a national figurehead and arguing for an hereditary aristocratic sovereign; that in doing so, you seem to contradict the sort of liberal universalism that generally underlies the modern state in the first place. It seems like a more consistent model would be a depoliticised elective head of state, something akin to the Irish presidency (which was more or less consciously constructed as a republican equivalent to the British monarch).

 

[Cutlass]

Objectivism never did have any relationship to objective reality.

 

[Jan H]

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...

Not true, as long as the monarchs can get accepted by all subgroups in the union.
For example, I think one could call Belgium an "anti-nationalist union", and the monarchy is one of the few remaining national institutions. Only the most radical Flemish nationalists parties want to get rid of the monarchy.

 

[Ramius75]

no, all monarchy with power should be abolish. they can stay as civilian... but even so, i think their property should be confiscated...

like France, Russia, China.

 

[lovett]

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.

I imagine Traitorfish, certainly most people, would define the British monarchy as a monarchy. If the question is intended to exclude constitutional monarchies then it is trivial; of course Monarchies in which an unelected monarch rules is not compatible with liberal democracy. It is not compatible with democracy.

With that in mind, I would question your assertion that the perseverance of the monarchy is purely an issue 'institutional inertia'. At least in the UK case (I can speak less authoritatively about the Australian case) the monarch performs some vital constitutional functions. The monarch enhances the political system, rather than degrades it.

As has been mentioned, first and foremost the monarch constitutes a viable figure for ceremonial head of state. The role of the head of state is to represent the entirety of the polity and the monarch is uniquely suited to this role. That is because the monarch is strictly non-partisan. Any other mechanism for choosing a head of state would require make the position divisive and partisan (the US presidency, for example). The role of the monarchy in addressing the nation with no allegiance but that to the nation is one that is impossible to replicate within the modern party system. Any alternative candidate would require the backing of some political party and no such candidate could act as the impartial figurehead instantiated in the monarchy. This is all the more important with the spread of devolution.

Moreover an elected head of state (in terms of a presidency) would undermine the (very successful) Westminster model of democracy. This relies on the sovereignty of parliament and the consensus that parliament is the only body with the legitimacy required to govern. An elected head of state could clearly claim legitimacy from national constituency and could leverage this legitimacy into political influence. This is not a good thing.

Finally, the international benefits of the monarchy are often ignored. The monarchy is what unites the commonwealth and thus creates and excellent network of diplomatic links. For Britain, the monarch constitutes and excellent international ambassador which greatly helps the country maintain close relationships with its former empire. An elected head of state would make this whole system unstable.

I am not claiming that the benefits of them monarchy are huge nor that republicanism would entail societal collapse. But I am claiming that the monarchy is a useful institution with quite tangible benefits, at least for the UK.

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.

See above: a case in which constitutional monarchy works better than a republic.

 

[Winner]

I can understand your argument, but it seems that a significant jump is made between arguing for a national figurehead and arguing for an hereditary aristocratic sovereign; that in doing so, you seem to contradict the sort of liberal universalism that generally underlies the modern state in the first place. It seems like a more consistent model would be a depoliticised elective head of state, something akin to the Irish presidency (which was more or less consciously constructed as a republican equivalent to the British monarch).

Again, I don't see the problem. Monarch as a national figurehead also connects the people with the more distant past - that's what aristocratic dynasties are about. Sure there is an element of tribalism in it, but who cares? Construction of national myths and traditions always involves a lot of cherry-picking. (And an elected head of state will always be involved in politics, somehow. Our presidents are supposed to be apolitical too, but they've never really been that).

 

[timtofly]

Isn't a Monarchy just a "god" in the flesh?

A democracy is the voice of the people. As long as the "people" did not mind having "god" around, things will work swimmingly. If "god" becomes a burden, then it is gotten rid of.

 

[aronnax]

Isn't a Monarchy just a "god" in the flesh?

A democracy is the voice of the people. As long as the "people" did not mind having "god" around, things will work swimmingly. If "god" becomes a burden, then it is gotten rid of.

It was several centuries ago... but we moved passed that a lonnnnngggg time ago.
Nobody in Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway etc etc thinks that their respective monarchs are 'gods' in any sense of that word. Not even the Japanese.

I always asks myself, where would Thailand be, if they overthrew the monarchy after/during WWII. My guess would be a painful dictatorship.

 

[Cutlass]

I imagine Traitorfish, certainly most people, would define the British monarchy as a monarchy. If the question is intended to exclude constitutional monarchies then it is trivial; of course Monarchies in which an unelected monarch rules is not compatible with liberal democracy. It is not compatible with democracy.

With that in mind, I would question your assertion that the perseverance of the monarchy is purely an issue 'institutional inertia'. At least in the UK case (I can speak less authoritatively about the Australian case) the monarch performs some vital constitutional functions. The monarch enhances the political system, rather than degrades it.

As has been mentioned, first and foremost the monarch constitutes a viable figure for ceremonial head of state. The role of the head of state is to represent the entirety of the polity and the monarch is uniquely suited to this role. That is because the monarch is strictly non-partisan. Any other mechanism for choosing a head of state would require make the position divisive and partisan (the US presidency, for example). The role of the monarchy in addressing the nation with no allegiance but that to the nation is one that is impossible to replicate within the modern party system. Any alternative candidate would require the backing of some political party and no such candidate could act as the impartial figurehead instantiated in the monarchy. This is all the more important with the spread of devolution.

Moreover an elected head of state (in terms of a presidency) would undermine the (very successful) Westminster model of democracy. This relies on the sovereignty of parliament and the consensus that parliament is the only body with the legitimacy required to govern. An elected head of state could clearly claim legitimacy from national constituency and could leverage this legitimacy into political influence. This is not a good thing.

Finally, the international benefits of the monarchy are often ignored. The monarchy is what unites the commonwealth and thus creates and excellent network of diplomatic links. For Britain, the monarch constitutes and excellent international ambassador which greatly helps the country maintain close relationships with its former empire. An elected head of state would make this whole system unstable.

I am not claiming that the benefits of them monarchy are huge nor that republicanism would entail societal collapse. But I am claiming that the monarchy is a useful institution with quite tangible benefits, at least for the UK.




See above: a case in which constitutional monarchy works better than a republic.

You have described a system where people choose to keep the monarch because they want to. Your post does not make your point that the monarchy is beneficial. It only makes the point that some people want it.

 

[lovett]

You have described a system where people choose to keep the monarch because they want to. Your post does not make your point that the monarchy is beneficial. It only makes the point that some people want it.

Well, that's not true. I have argued that the monarch is useful as a unifying figurehead. I have argued that the monarchy is useful in maintaining Britain's parliamentary system of democracy. I have argued that the monarch is a useful international diplomat. All of these things are benefits entailed by the monarchy.

Now, you might argue that this would not constitute a benefit if we did not want unifying figureheads, international diplomats or parliamentary democracy. But this is a rather obtuse point. We may as well say that peace would not constitute a benefit if we were not opposed to violence and death. If this were true it would be immaterial; people do want peace and people do want good international diplomacy.

As it happens, I do not think it is true. I think peace is a benefit regardless of preference. A similar case can be made about the benefits of unifying figureheads. The benefits I have ascribed to Britain's monarchy are quite real.

 

[timtofly]

It was several centuries ago... but we moved passed that a lonnnnngggg time ago.
Nobody in Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway etc etc thinks that their respective monarchs are 'gods' in any sense of that word. Not even the Japanese.

I always asks myself, where would Thailand be, if they overthrew the monarchy after/during WWII. My guess would be a painful dictatorship.

My guess is that keeping a "Monarchy" would only be for that reason. Otherwise it would no longer be a "Monarchy".

That is one reason also that there are few left, even if in name only. People have moved on to other forms of government.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, that's not true. I have argued that the monarch is useful as a unifying figurehead. I have argued that the monarchy is useful in maintaining Britain's parliamentary system of democracy. I have argued that the monarch is a useful international diplomat. All of these things are benefits entailed by the monarchy.

Now, you might argue that this would not constitute a benefit if we did not want unifying figureheads, international diplomats or parliamentary democracy. But this is a rather obtuse point. We may as well say that peace would not constitute a benefit if we were not opposed to violence and death. If this were true it would be immaterial; people do want peace and people do want good international diplomacy.

As it happens, I do not think it is true. I think peace is a benefit regardless of preference. A similar case can be made about the benefits of unifying figureheads. The benefits I have ascribed to Britain's monarchy are quite real.

But the point is that you have ascribed benefits to them that fit your particular viewpoint. And that's fine, you have every right to your viewpoint. But that does not make your views convincing. In fact, just the opposite. To me, your viewpoint comes across as "I want the monarchy, so lets give them something to do", rather than a real set of convincing reasons why having the monarch is better than not having them.

 

[Skwink]

I'd only support a monarchy if I got to be king.

 

[Traitorfish]

@Lovett: I should reiterate, my question was on the ideological compatibility of monarchy and liberal democracy, rather than the mechanical compatibility. As I said, the over-abundance of examples makes that self evident. What I'm interested in is the how apparent ideological contradictions between the necessarily exclusive and elitist institution of monarchy, and the egalitarian and universal principles around which most contemporary democratic states are understood to be constructed.

Again, I don't see the problem. Monarch as a national figurehead also connects the people with the more distant past - that's what aristocratic dynasties are about. Sure there is an element of tribalism in it, but who cares? Construction of national myths and traditions always involves a lot of cherry-picking. (And an elected head of state will always be involved in politics, somehow. Our presidents are supposed to be apolitical too, but they've never really been that).

Alright, but I'm not sure how this addresses the question of their apparent ideological inconsistency between liberal democracy and monarchy. You argument, like TF's, is a conservative one, which seems to imply that the only way that the two can be reconciled is to approach them both as tools adopted for reasons of utility, rather than principles to be upheld, a far cry from the principled justifications usually offered for most liberal democratic systems- or, for that matter, most monarchies.

 

[Winner]

It was several centuries ago... but we moved passed that a lonnnnngggg time ago.
Nobody in Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway etc etc thinks that their respective monarchs are 'gods' in any sense of that word. Not even the Japanese.

I always asks myself, where would Thailand be, if they overthrew the monarchy after/during WWII. My guess would be a painful dictatorship.

Exactly. Monarchy has time and again proven that it can be a stabilizing factor in times of painful transformation.

Too bad the Russians didn't re-introduce it when the USSR collapsed.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, "elective monarchy" usually implies that the monarch is usually for life. Granted, presidents for life are not very democratic.

Well, in an elective monarchy, the monarch is usually chosen from an aristocracy by an aristocracy. The United Arab Emirates would be a good example.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Elective monarchy?

I've always found it strange that Elective Monarchy never found it's way to democracy.
Probably the English's fault.