Monarchy and Democracy

[Quackers]

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.

Aight I see what you mean now.
Obviously they are compatiable just from looking at the examples i've listen.
Are they compatiable in an idealogical sense? I'll leave that for other posters...

 

[Masada]

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

ehhhhhh the role of the thai monarchy is rather more complex than one might suspect. consider that HRH underwrote and supported Kittikachorn and Thanarat for as long as he could. there's also pridi as a cautionary tale to consider. besides which the whole 1997 constitutional crisis was more a pragmatic move than some sort of deep lingering commitment to democracy per say. then again it did restore democracy and HRH was rather quick to defend it against thaksin. then again abashits regime was arguably worse. hur hur.

 

[lovett]

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.

I really can't see why you are perceiving my posts in this way. I have argued that, for Britain, the monarchy fulfills certain roles in a way nobody else could do. These specific roles are valuable.

My ascribing value to these roles is not controversial. I am assuming we can agree that at the least competent international diplomacy and unifying figures are valuable. If you accept that they are, and accept my argument that the monarch is unique in suitability for said roles, you must conclude that the monarch adds value.

Um. I take it you're not familiar with Ireland or India then? Both systems developed directly based on the Westminster model. In both cases the president does essentially what the Queen or Governor-General does. (Australia, for the record, has something often called a "Washminster" system - because somewhat unusually among Westminister systems we have a strong fully elected Senate which is the equal of the Lower House and can block bills)

This would seem to suggest you believe that parliamentary-supremacist republics aren't a thing. Nothing about having an elected head of states suggests they have to wield power or be anything other than ceremonial, and there are literally dozens of examples of republics where this is shown. In fact, outside the Americas, only a minority of republics have a strong active head of state. Can you name the president of Germany, of Israel, of India? Yeah, exactly.

In the piece of text you quote I make two claims; one that an elected head of state would undermine the British parliamentary system and one that an elected head of state could undermine the British parliamentary system. I only intended the second and I do not think this is controversial; and elected head of state has legitimacy that the Monarch lacks and therefore there is potential for such a figure to have influence over the political process.

The presidents in the countries you cite, despite being ceremonial, do exactly that. German president occasionally refuse to sign laws they deem unconstitutional, Indian president occasionally declare emergencies and make a variety of important appointments and Israeli presidents do both. This influence isn't overweening, but it is present.

This is actually just factually wrong. Firstly the Commonwealth is essentially pointless, and secondly, only 16 of the 54 members have Elizabeth as their head of state. Five others have autochtinous monarchies, but the majority of Commonwealth members are in fact republics.

I don't mean to ascribe massive worth to the commonwealth, but I wonder how the many people working for it would take your claim that it was pointless. The commonwealth is a useful diplomatic network, it promotes co-operation in education, law (the lawyers association), business (the business council) and development in general. This co-operation makes international diplomacy slightly easier. A slight, but quite real, benefit.

That Elizabeth is not head of state of the majority of commonwealth state is irrelevant. She is head of the commonwealth. If the monarchy were removed the head of the common wealth would be either the elected president of the UK or rotating. Neither would work well. The former would be liable to push the commonwealth into a more active role than it could sustain and the latter would entail having some rather unsaleable individuals heading the organization.

In both case, the diplomatic benefits conferred by the monarchy would be jeopardised.

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.

None of your post says anything about the compatibility of monarchy with liberal democracy, though. All it's actually saying is that "there are benefits to having a ceremonial monarchy" (or rather, for ceremonial heads of state), which in fact concedes that to have a liberal democracy, you must neuter the monarchy to the point of ceremonialness, so the mon doesn't actually arch.

But you're right in saying this. What I have been arguing is that in at least one case monarchy benefits a liberal democracy. I think that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of 'compatibility'; a monarchy exists within a liberal democracy and benefits that democracy.

However we can discuss ideological compatibility as well. Here, I suppose, the argument is that monarchy is somehow incompatible with with the principles behind liberalism or the principles behind democracy. Neither claim is credible.

Let's taker democracy first. Generally, a democracy is taken to be a state in which political power alternates in contestable election in which those subject to political power vote. By 'generally' I mean 'In the academic community'; the most plausible measures of democracy are procedural. Democracy is the procedure of contestable, inclusive elections determining who holds political power.

I think it is clear that monarchies as they stand today are not incompatible with this. Monarchs, after all, don't hold any power. They are irrelevant.

Lets move on to liberalism. The ideals behind liberalism of the classical variety concern the opportunity to live ones life as one sees fit. This entails freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech so on and so forth. Again, this is clearly not incompatible with monarchy; the existence of a monarch does not impinge these freedoms. Indeed, classical liberalism was born in constitutional monarchy.

The only way to claim liberal democracy is incompatible with liberalism is to claim liberalism has a substantive egalitarian component; that everyone should get the same. This is false; if we accepted this no country would be a liberal democracy. Nonetheless, I think it a plausible argument that monarchy is ideologically incompatible with egalitarianism. However I do not think it is a very strong one; it doesn't tell us anything interesting or normative about monarchy. For instance, it is quite clear that practically monarchy is compatible with egalitarianism; Norway, Sweden and Denmark are amongst the most equal nations of the world despite being constitutional monarchies. I'd suggest that ideological egalitarianism, even at the expense of overall welfare, is not a position that should be held.

 

[Cutlass]

I really can't see why you are perceiving my posts in this way. I have argued that, for Britain, the monarchy fulfills certain roles in a way nobody else could do. These specific roles are valuable.

My ascribing value to these roles is not controversial. I am assuming we can agree that at the least competent international diplomacy and unifying figures are valuable. If you accept that they are, and accept my argument that the monarch is unique in suitability for said roles, you must conclude that the monarch adds value.

Here's the thing though. You are describing roles for the monarchy that it is extremely easy to fill without the monarchy. And because those roles are so easy to fill without the monarchy, it makes it appear that the monarchy is being given makework to justify its existence. And there's really no reason to justify its existence.

Keeping something just because it is a tradition, and not because it serves any real function, doesn't sit right with me. Tradition by itself is not a sufficient justification for doing things.

So you have a monarchy that doesn't serve any function that wouldn't be better served without the monarchy. And, to be fair, I just don't like monarchs. I don't respect them, I don't trust them, and I want them gone.

So in your reasoning for why to keep them, you come up with no reasons that really need, or are even better, with a monarch than without, you reinforce my wanting them gone rather than mitigating it.

 

[lovett]

Here's the thing though. You are describing roles for the monarchy that it is extremely easy to fill without the monarchy. And because those roles are so easy to fill without the monarchy, it makes it appear that the monarchy is being given makework to justify its existence. And there's really no reason to justify its existence.

Keeping something just because it is a tradition, and not because it serves any real function, doesn't sit right with me. Tradition by itself is not a sufficient justification for doing things.

So you have a monarchy that doesn't serve any function that wouldn't be better served without the monarchy. And, to be fair, I just don't like monarchs. I don't respect them, I don't trust them, and I want them gone.

So in your reasoning for why to keep them, you come up with no reasons that really need, or are even better, with a monarch than without, you reinforce my wanting them gone rather than mitigating it.

My argument has been precisely that these roles aren't easy to fill without the monarchy. Succinctly I have argued:

1) The non-partisan nature of the monarchy allows the monarch to act as national unifier.
2) The prestige and training of the monarch allows the monarch to be an effective international diplomat. In particular, without the monarchy the Commonwealth would be difficult to maintain.
3) The monarchy plays a unique role in the British constitution. An elected head of state could, because of electoral legitimacy, wield political influence which would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

You can argue against these point if you wish. But you are not doing that. You are making broad contradictory statements which don't engage with any of my arguments. For example, my arguments are not based on an appeal to tradition. I have never mentioned tradition. Indeed, if I thought the monarchy were not useful institution I would not believe that it should be maintained because of tradition. I would favour abolishing it.

The way to move forward with this discussion is not to inform us of your preferences regarding monarchies, nor to make more broad and sweeping contradictory statements. It is to look at the arguments I have put forward (in more detail in other posts) and explain why you think them invalid or unsound.

 

[Leoreth]

1) The non-partisan nature of the monarchy allows the monarch to act as national unifier.

Doesn't seem to be necessary since there are nations with perfectly fine internal cohesion without monarchy. Furthermore, national unity in monarchies is identified with the monarch only because he is present already. No country would say "we need more national unity, let's install a monarchy". So it's only an appeal to tradition again.

2) The prestige and training of the monarch allows the monarch to be an effective international diplomat. In particular, without the monarchy the Commonwealth would be difficult to maintain.

Granted in case of the commonwealth. I don't see how a monarch needs to be necessarily better as a diplomat, though.

3) The monarchy plays a unique role in the British constitution. An elected head of state could, because of electoral legitimacy, wield political influence which would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

That depends on the political powers you give your head of state. What would change if his powers are exactly the same as a hereditary head of state?

 

[Winston Hughes]

Monarchy's compatibility with democracy is determined by its popularity. If a majority of people prefer their hereditary head-of-state to any non-hereditary alternative, then it would be anti-democratic to deny them. Likewise, if a majority determined a preference for a republican settlement, then it would be anti-democratic to retain a monarch.

In the UK, hereditary succession is best understood as a pragmatic mechanism for selecting a new head-of-state who is untainted by politics and (as far as possible) interest. Whatever ideological underpinnings one might attribute to the system, they are irrelevant in practice. We are often (and rightly, to my mind) seen as a nation of political pragmatists, for whom any strong ideological preoccupation is seen as inherently dangerous. And, what's more, I would argue that this anti-ideological bent is one of the best protections for liberal democracy against the influence of 'principled' political ideologies (which always seem to produce profoundly illiberal and anti-democratic outcomes). In this context, the monarchy persists because it is far more popular than any alternative, and because the only serious objections to it are ideological, rather than practical.

 

[sysyphus]

3) The monarchy plays a unique role in the British constitution. An elected head of state could, because of electoral legitimacy, wield political influence which would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

In principle, I agree with this, but there is some practical value for the Head of State to have some powers over Parliament. I'm not sure how things have played out in the UK in recent years, but here in Canada, Parliament has become an unmitigated disaster.

Our current PM has milked this lack of power to basically force the Governor-General (who fulfills the monarch's role here) to prorogue and dissolve Parliament at his will (and for no valid reason other than political opportunism, and has repeatedly acted in contempt of Parliament with impunity since the GG has no elected mandate to enact discipline on him.

 

[otago]

In principle, I agree with this, but there is some practical value for the Head of State to have some powers over Parliament. I'm not sure how things have played out in the UK in recent years, but here in Canada, Parliament has become an unmitigated disaster.

Our current PM has milked this lack of power to basically force the Governor-General (who fulfills the monarch's role here) to prorogue and dissolve Parliament at his will (and for no valid reason other than political opportunism, and has repeatedly acted in contempt of Parliament with impunity since the GG has no elected mandate to enact discipline on him.

Is the reason because the Liberals put a woman in who happened to be weak minded when push came to shove as GG ?
All she had to do is tell Harper that parliament would be prorogued once he proved he had the votes to govern, if not she would invite other party leaders to form a government.

The GGs mandate comes from the crown so while Canada is a Monarchy it exists.

I would like our PM to try that on with our GG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Mateparae

 

[Traitorfish]

However we can discuss ideological compatibility as well. Here, I suppose, the argument is that monarchy is somehow incompatible with with the principles behind liberalism or the principles behind democracy. Neither claim is credible.

Let's taker democracy first. Generally, a democracy is taken to be a state in which political power alternates in contestable election in which those subject to political power vote. By 'generally' I mean 'In the academic community'; the most plausible measures of democracy are procedural. Democracy is the procedure of contestable, inclusive elections determining who holds political power.

I think it is clear that monarchies as they stand today are not incompatible with this. Monarchs, after all, don't hold any power. They are irrelevant.

Lets move on to liberalism. The ideals behind liberalism of the classical variety concern the opportunity to live ones life as one sees fit. This entails freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech so on and so forth. Again, this is clearly not incompatible with monarchy; the existence of a monarch does not impinge these freedoms. Indeed, classical liberalism was born in constitutional monarchy.

The only way to claim liberal democracy is incompatible with liberalism is to claim liberalism has a substantive egalitarian component; that everyone should get the same. This is false; if we accepted this no country would be a liberal democracy. Nonetheless, I think it a plausible argument that monarchy is ideologically incompatible with egalitarianism. However I do not think it is a very strong one; it doesn't tell us anything interesting or normative about monarchy. For instance, it is quite clear that practically monarchy is compatible with egalitarianism; Norway, Sweden and Denmark are amongst the most equal nations of the world despite being constitutional monarchies. I'd suggest that ideological egalitarianism, even at the expense of overall welfare, is not a position that should be held.

Good response, thank you! (And I'll make it clear that I'm not arguing any particular case- my own politics aren't liberal, so I've no investment one way or the other- but just trying to improve my understanding.) However, I do wonder if it's possible to distinguish egalitarianism from liberalism as being something concerned by definition with material outcomes. Aren't there some shades of opinion in between the two, which begin with egalitarian principles without coming to communistic outcomes? ("Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good" as the first article of the Rights of Man and Citizen has it.) So it seems that even if liberalism does not necessarily produce, a contradiction with monarchy, that some interpretations of it will do so. Does that change things at all, or would that simply be another case of ideology-over-practice?

In the UK, hereditary succession is best understood as a pragmatic mechanism for selecting a new head-of-state who is untainted by politics and (as far as possible) interest. Whatever ideological underpinnings one might attribute to the system, they are irrelevant in practice. We are often (and rightly, to my mind) seen as a nation of political pragmatists, for whom any strong ideological preoccupation is seen as inherently dangerous. And, what's more, I would argue that this anti-ideological bent is one of the best protections for liberal democracy against the influence of 'principled' political ideologies (which always seem to produce profoundly illiberal and anti-democratic outcomes). In this context, the monarchy persists because it is far more popular than any alternative, and because the only serious objections to it are ideological, rather than practical.

But doesn't that suggest a lack of investment in liberal democracy in itself beyond the extent to which it is seen as an effective way to organise things? I'm not saying that this approach can't be argued for, but it seems more mercenary an approach than most people would care to admit their politics to being. Even conservatives are shy, in an age in which the basis of political organisation is articulated in terms of rights and liberties, of expressing those sort of Burkean opinion. But perhaps that's just a comment on the form of contemporary political discourse, rather than its actual content?

Also, another question for both, what implications does this for the formal legal status of the monarch and public, i.e as sovereign and subjects? If monarchy is adhered to on a more pragmatic than ideological basis, then why is what appears to a very much ideological relationship formally upheld, rather than something more true to the actual content of the relationship? Could it simply be said that, as long as we're all quite aware that it's a legal fiction, it doesn't matter what form it is described as taking; that it's really just theatre, and that for the purposes its intended, a continuity of ceremony is more important?

 

[amadeus]

I don't remember where I heard it, but I heard an interesting pro-monarchy argument. The idea was that in countries with monarchies, people direct their awe towards the monarchs rather than the prime ministers and it makes it easier to dispose of governments. The person compared it to the situation in the U.S., where we nearly deify our presidents.

I don't know how much truth there is to it, but it was an interesting argument nonetheless.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'd rather we not direct awe at or deify anyone.

I suspect that having an executive council rather than a single individual head of the government/state would help in that regard.

 

[Winston Hughes]

But doesn't that suggest a lack of investment in liberal democracy in itself beyond the extent to which it is seen as an effective way to organise things?

It was meant to suggest a lack of investment in monarchy beyond the extent to which it is seen as an effective way to organise things.

But, yes, liberalism often tends to a sort of morally-concerned pragmatism, rather than any deeper ideology. I would argue, however, that this is quite in keeping with the notion of plurality (of values, interests, etc) which underpins much liberal thought.

A liberal perspective, so defined, is concerned to enable politics of a type in which competing values and interests might reach peaceful accommodation, with the 'principles' it adopts being those most likely to sustain such arrangements. Thus, principles such as free speech and free association are crucial, but not unbounded - they are required for the politics to work as intended, but must have limits, or else the system is prone to subversion.

On the question of monarchy's compatibility with liberalism, then, what matters is the effect of that institution on political life. Clearly, the monarch who seeks to dominate is an enemy of liberalism. And any use of the office to skew politics in favour of one group over another will be incompatible with liberal ends. However, if the monarch stays out of politics entirely, then (s)he can provide an apolitical embodiment of the system itself. The popularity of constitutional monarchs in those liberal democracies which have them is good evidence of this, especially when compared with the popularity of elected heads-of-state elsewhere.

I'm not saying that this approach can't be argued for, but it seems more mercenary an approach than most people would care to admit their politics to being. Even conservatives are shy, in an age in which the basis of political organisation is articulated in terms of rights and liberties, of expressing those sort of Burkean opinion. But perhaps that's just a comment on the form of contemporary political discourse, rather than its actual content?

The nature of political competition is such that hypocrisy is inherent to any system which is both liberal and democratic. My feeling is that a mature viewpoint accepts as a necessary evil that most political discourse will be at least mildly fraudulent.

Also, another question for both, what implications does this for the formal legal status of the monarch and public, i.e as sovereign and subjects? If monarchy is adhered to on a more pragmatic than ideological basis, then why is what appears to a very much ideological relationship formally upheld, rather than something more true to the actual content of the relationship? Could it simply be said that, as long as we're all quite aware that it's a legal fiction, it doesn't matter what form it is described as taking; that it's really just theatre, and that for the purposes its intended, a continuity of ceremony is more important?

Pretty much. As above, hypocrisy is inherent to politics in a liberal democracy. The fiction of an ideological basis for retaining monarchy is one example of that. This is not to say that nobody genuinely believes in an ideological basis, but rather that it is granted by many who don't as a relatively harmless concession to those who do (including, presumably, the monarch herself).

 

[Arwon]

I don't remember where I heard it, but I heard an interesting pro-monarchy argument. The idea was that in countries with monarchies, people direct their awe towards the monarchs rather than the prime ministers and it makes it easier to dispose of governments. The person compared it to the situation in the U.S., where we nearly deify our presidents.

I don't know how much truth there is to it, but it was an interesting argument nonetheless.

I think it's a bit rubbish. Americans deify their presidents, sure, but that doesn't mean Germans or Irish or Indians deify their presidents.

 

[Leoreth]

We would have to notice them doing something first.

 

[Arwon]

Exactly. Aside from being a political culture difference (Americans seem to deify their constitution and flag, too...), it's also got a lot more to do with whether or not you have a parliamentary system or a presidential system.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah. I'd also think that the admiration the US president gets is for other reasons than that for monarchs. The fact that he is head of state and head of government in one person, so a truly supreme leader, contributes a lot to it. Monarchs in parliamentary monarchy on the other hand benefit from tradition, their splendor and (let's be honest) the rainbow press factor.

Parliamentary republics don't really have either of that. The head of state is too insignificant and unimpressive that anyone should care about him, while the head of government is too entangled in daily politics to get any admiration of his person. I'd argue that this is beneficial and done so on purpose.

 

[Dachs]

The fact that he is head of state and head of government in one person, so a truly supreme leader, contributes a lot to it.

teehee

"truly supreme leader"

 

[Arwon]

Yeah. I'd also think that the admiration the US president gets is for other reasons than that for monarchs. The fact that he is head of state and head of government in one person, so a truly supreme leader, contributes a lot to it. Monarchs in parliamentary monarchy on the other hand benefit from tradition, their splendor and (let's be honest) the rainbow press factor.

Parliamentary republics don't really have either of that. The head of state is too insignificant and unimpressive that anyone should care about him, while the head of government is too entangled in daily politics to get any admiration of his person. I'd argue that this is beneficial and done so on purpose.

The real test of that theory would be to look at the political cultures of other presidential-supremacist systems (ie, most countries in the Americas). Is there the same reverence for the person, or the office, in Colombia, Mexico or Chile?

 

[sysyphus]

Is the reason because the Liberals put a woman in who happened to be weak minded when push came to shove as GG ?
All she had to do is tell Harper that parliament would be prorogued once he proved he had the votes to govern, if not she would invite other party leaders to form a government.

The GGs mandate comes from the crown so while Canada is a Monarchy it exists.

I would like our PM to try that on with our GG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Mateparae

I don't know if it was Mme Jean herself or the fact that there would be trouble if a non-democratically chosen GG denied the request of a democratically elected PM, despite the fact that the move to prorogue was highly unpopular.

Harper did a fine job of getting the public to oppose any idea of an opposition coalition by making them think that it was undemocratic (despite the fact that he had attempted such a thing whilst in opposition himself 4 years earlier).

An elected GG would have had the full mandate to tame Harper's Parliamentary dysfunction rather than let him bring it all into the gutter and pin it on the opposition.