Monarchy and Democracy

[Traitorfish]

They are not at all compatible and there are no examples of these 2 institutions functioning side by side, as far as I can tell. It's just a matter of names since the role taken up by kings and queens of constitutional monarchies today is similar or identical to that of most presidents of parliamentary republics. Modern constitutional monarchies exist just because the people of those countries weren't mad enough at their monarchs to cut their heads or exile them, but there is no fundamental difference with other representative forms of government.

I assumed that "monarchy" was understood in the sense of a particular kind of office, rather than a form of government- if "monarchy" can even be taken to describe a particular kind of government, but I'm not sure that it can. My question was about the ideological compatibility of monarchical institutions and liberal democracy, specifically whether or not it is possible to reconcile a liberal universalism, which is generally put forward as the justifying principles of contemporary democratic government, with an office which is by definition exclusive and elitist.

 

[Winner]

You don't think that a revived Tsar may have been a bit contentious in Russia? I think you should try to remember exactly what the regime of the Autocrat of All the Russias was like- surely if the historical connection is important in acting as this political buttress, then it has to be a positive connection?

Nobody remembers that, and in a country where a considerably large fraction of the population still adores Stalin of all people, it wouldn't really matter. This is just my opinion, I can't really back it up with anything.

I disagree. Putting a human face on something means that all the flaws and foibles of that person can transfer to the institution as a whole, something that's extremely bad if you lose the genetic lottery and get an idiot. Was the tsarist system a Bad Thing overall? It didn't matter in 1917 in Russia because the Romanovs were associated with everything that they did that sucked.

Keep in mind that I am talking about a system where the monarchy remains only for symbolic purposes. So yeah, you can get an idiot, but in modern monarchies they can't do much of a damage, and with proper education you can make even an idiot into a popular figurehead. And if he doesn't fit the bill, you can always make him/her renounce the crown. That's why Charles will probably never be the king of England. I mean Britain. United Kingdom... whatever.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nobody remembers that and in a country where a considerably large fraction of the population still adores Stalin of all people, it wouldn't really matter. This is just my opinion, I can't really back it up with anything.

But if we're talking about the subjective perceptions of Russians, then what does it matter that some of them still like Stalin? That adoration is based on the particular historical legacy of a particular individual, not some inherited love of despotism, and as far as I know, the tsars have a reputation no more polished in the eyes of most Russians, and certainly not most Russians c.1991. This all rest on your claim that "nobody remembers that", which seems a frankly spurious claim to make given that the Revolution quite probably constitutes the single most significant episode in modern Russian history.

 

[Winner]

But if we're talking about the subjective perceptions of Russians, then what does it matter that some of them still like Stalin? That adoration is based on the particular historical legacy of a particular individual, not some inherited love of despotism, and as far as I know, the tsars have a reputation no more polished in the eyes of most Russians, and certainly not most Russians c.1991. This all rest on your claim that "nobody remembers that", which seems a frankly spurious claim to make given that the Revolution quite probably constitutes the single most significant episode in modern Russian history.

I am only suggesting that the human capacity to pick the good things and forget about the bad parts is enormous. Otherwise every Englishman would have to be up in arms over the monarchy, which has a particularly nasty and bloody history in Britain.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am only suggesting that the human capacity to pick the good things and forget about the bad parts is enormous.

But not the reverse? Which seems rather more pertinent given what we're dealing with.

Otherwise every Englishman would have to be up in arms over the monarchy, which has a particularly nasty and bloody history in Britain.

There's a not inconsiderable difference between an absolute monarch in the 17th century, followed by three hundred or so years of stable constitutional monarchy, and a tyrant in the 20th century followed by no monarchy whatsoever. The Brits have had a while to buttress their medieval relic with tradition and ideology, while what you're asking of the Russians is to revive an office that last saw power as a hated despotate in the hope that this will somehow bring them together in a spirit of fraternal understanding.

 

[Benefactor]

But not the reverse? Which seems rather more pertinent given what we're dealing with.

But not the reverse, not really. I'm sure you've heard things like "Things where better in the old days" before .

 

[Communisto]

Monarchs should be stripped of all privilege. Showering people with wealth like that based on the fact that theyre really good at screwing their own cousins is a travesty.

 

[Tani Coyote]

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.

True as this all is, I don’t see France accepting any monarch, and they’re one of the big players.

All the other states, meanwhile, would surely compete for who’s monarch ascends to European status – you have quite a few monarchies over there.

It’ll be a lot simpler to have a 100% electoral government. The only monarchy that could possibly represent all of Europe would be, and this is pushing it, the Habsburgs? And they’ve been out of power for almost 100 years.

 

[Traitorfish]

But not the reverse, not really. I'm sure you've heard things like "Things where better in the old days" before .

Usually hand-in-hand with how easy people today have it. There's not a lot of consistency in these regards, and any conclusive judgements don't seem to amount to much more than generational snobbery.

 

[Quackers]

Yes.
See: Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands. Sweden, Spain.

 

[Leoreth]

It’ll be a lot simpler to have a 100% electoral government. The only monarchy that could possibly represent all of Europe would be, and this is pushing it, the Habsburgs? And they’ve been out of power for almost 100 years.

Interesting that you say that, because Otto von Habsburg was quite invested into European unification movements, being honorary president of the Paneuropean Union and serving as member of the European Parliament for 20 years.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Interesting that you say that, because Otto von Habsburg was quite invested into European unification movements, being honorary president of the Paneuropean Union and serving as member of the European Parliament for 20 years.

Clearly all part of their master plan to outdo Charles V's legacy - unify all of Europe under the Habsburg monarchy!

... though seriously, that is an interesting bit of trivia, actually.

I just suggested the Habsburgs because of their long tradition of ruling over very diverse empires.

 

[Arwon]

Yes.
See: Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands. Sweden, Spain.

Tha's not an argument. The fact that they co-exist doesn't show that the two things are compatible. Constitutional monarchies only work as democracies inasmuch as the actual power of monarchs is removed completely.

 

[otago]

Tha's not an argument. The fact that they co-exist doesn't show that the two things are compatible. Constitutional monarchies only work as democracies inasmuch as the actual power of monarchs is removed completely.

Strange, the Aussie GG still has reserve powers from the crown that were used by Kerr to dump Whitlam.
Of course the problem with both Aus and our politicians is that they would dislike a president in either country having a power base from being voted in by the people

 

[Leoreth]

But parliamentary monarchy and presidential republic are not the only alternatives out there.

 

[civ2]

READ THIS.
It's exactly on the topic of "king" vs "democracy".

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes.
See: Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands. Sweden, Spain.

I acknowledge their ability to function together in the first post, so I don't know you're hoping to prove. My question was whether this represent an ideological contradiction, which is not at all self-evident.

 

[mayor]

I acknowledge their ability to function together in the first post, so I don't know you're hoping to prove. My question was whether this represent an ideological contradiction, which is not at all self-evident.

of course it represents an ideological contradiction... even the most die-hard monarchist must admit that a country ruled by the people that has an head of state that isn't chosen by the people is contradictory.

 

[Traitorfish]

of course it represents an ideological contradiction... even the most die-hard monarchist must admit that a country ruled by the people that has an head of state that isn't chosen by the people is contradictory.

Right, that's how it would seem to me, but I'm wondering if other people have differing opinions, or subscribe to any resolutions to the apparent contradiction that I have not yet encountered.

(In retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have added a poll. That seems to have given people the wrong impression about what my question was.)

 

[mayor]

aah.. so the reall question here is not whether or not a monarchy is compatible with a democracy but how the contradiction, of such a combination, can be "defended" (I'm looking for a term less assaulting but I cannot come up with it right now)

EDIT: wait.. why am I voicing a question you already stated?? and better formulated at that