Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Gori the Grey]

I keep saying it to complicate the even wronger claim that the US is a democracy.

 

[timtofly]

Trying too hard to give the hypothetical beginners a one word answer. For the vast majority of history 'monarchy' has not meant 'we have a king or queen as a sort of national mascot', it meant 'we have an absolute despot who claims ownership of the land and the inhabitants by hereditary right'. So giving them that one word answer is courting disaster.

Democracy is also a one word answer leading to disaster, because democracy has an inherent flaw that will destroy them if they do not ensure that knowledge of that flaw is pretty much universal among their population. If they are asking for this advice it certainly won't be, so sending them off to establish democracy will be a disaster.

Then there's the motive for answering in the first place. The best advice these people could get is 'don't ask'. Whether the answer is 'democracy, just be sure to elect someone we can cheat out of your resources' or 'monarchy, just remind the monarch he is a vassal of our monarch so we can demand your resources as tribute' or 'just put some despot in charge so we can trade him guns to keep his seat for everything he can wring out of you'...it won't be intended to serve them well anyway. The best thing that could happen for them is to be left alone, but Lord knows all of us 'better' countries can't allow that.

I don't think that there was much practice in the hereditary right catagory. It may have been a standard that was expected, but very few nations succeeded. It would seem that the more the monarchy was not involved in the government, the easier it was to hold such a standard.

 

[Traitorfish]

I keep saying it to complicate the even wronger claim that the US is a democracy.

In what sense of democracy?

 

[Tahuti]

Which doesn't have a single &%$&* thing to do with the structure of government of the United States. the subjects are not even tangentially related.

Yes it does. America's status as intercontinental world empire is for most part what allows corporations to circumvent the structure of government of the United States.

Do so many developed countries have monarchies because monarchical systems encourage development, or because their development, and the associated history of stability, allows them to retain these wilfully archaic institutions?

Monarchies, including relatively the ones with weak, even powerless monarchs, encourage a political culture of stewardship. Which allows to circumvent popular pressure that might otherwise impede with that goal.

 

[Traitorfish]

Monarchies, including relatively the ones with weak, even powerless monarchs, encourage a political culture of stewardship. Which allows to circumvent popular pressure that might otherwise impede with that goal.

What's the evidence for that?

 

[Tahuti]

What's the evidence for that?

The monarchies in Europe and the Arab world compared to their republican counterparts?

Correlation does not imply causation, yet I find this particular correlation too strong to just write down as accident (yet).

 

[Traitorfish]

The monarchies in Europe and the Arab world compared to their republican counterparts?

What about the monarchies of etcetera? You can't just gesture vaguely and go "ta-da".

 

[Tahuti]

What about the monarchies of etcetera? You can't just gesture vaguely and go "ta-da".

Elsewhere seems to be same story for that matter.

 

[Traitorfish]

What story? You're not even trying to make an argument.

 

[metatron]

Do so many developed countries have monarchies because monarchical systems encourage development, or because their development, and the associated history of stability, allows them to retain these wilfully archaic institutions?

This.

Let's check now this tendency fare on regional set. Arab countries are good to check our hypothesis because they have plenty of monarchies and "democracies".

Here is a list ranged by HDI (number at the left is position in HDI chart):

Spoiler :

31 Qatar - monarchy
34 Saudi Arabia - monarchy
40 United Arab Emirates - confederation of monarchies
44 Bahrain - monarchy
46 Kuwait - monarchy
55 Libya - "democracy"
56 Oman - monarchy
65 Lebanon - "democracy"
77 Jordan - monarchy

90 Tunisia - "democracy"
93 Algeria - "democracy"
107 Palestine, State of - "democracy"
110 Egypt - "democracy"
120 Iraq - "democracy"
129 Morocco - monarchy
159 Comoros - "democracy"
161 Mauritania - "democracy"
170 Djibouti - one-party rulership
166 Sudan - "democracy"
118 Syrian Arab Republic - hereditary authorianship
154 Yemen - "democracy"

I think comments are not needed though there is an interesting participant in the first half - Libya whose HDI was mostly earned during Quaddafi rule. It will be interesting to follow whether new-found democraticness of this young democracy help to advance higher in HDI's chart or it will go down to comply with general trend.

Yeah, uhm, one problem:
Virtually all of the monarchies in the region have gotten wealthy based on resource extraction.
The only supposed "democracy" that had the chance to do that was Iraq, which has effectively been continuously at war with the United States for the last 23 years.

This applies on a global scale too: Many of the wealthy "monarchies" are either sparsely populated results of the British Empire or are petty states or deal in ressource extraction (and/or fishing and/or forestry in conincidense with low population density) or two of the above.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes it does. America's status as intercontinental world empire is for most part what allows corporations to circumvent the structure of government of the United States.

Which, again, has @#%&all to do with the structure of government in the US. These are not related subjects.

 

[Snorrius]

Which, again, has @#%&all to do with the structure of government in the US. These are not related subjects.

They are related, but you objection is not important in the context of this thread. Important is: is USA a monarchy, if not whether it follows a "general solution" or it is something else.

 

[Cutlass]

They are related, but you objection is not important in the context of this thread. Important is: is USA a monarchy, if not whether it follows a "general solution" or it is something else.

The USA is a constitutional republic. The other word you are using doesn't even refer to a form of government.

 

[Traitorfish]

Virtually all of the monarchies in the region have gotten wealthy based on resource extraction.
The only supposed "democracy" that had the chance to do that was Iraq, which has effectively been continuously at war with the United States for the last 23 years.

An additional problem, most of the "democracies" on the list were once monarchies of some description, but those monarchies collapsed under the weight of elite and popular dissatisfaction. Snorrius is attempting to infer long-term historical trends from a snapshot of history.

 

[Snorrius]

The USA is a constitutional republic. The other word you are using doesn't even refer to a form of government.

(1) USA is not monarchy
(2) USA have an unusual governmental system comparing to which is usually recommended now for young democracies.

 

[Tahuti]

An additional problem, most of the "democracies" on the list were once monarchies of some description, but those monarchies collapsed under the weight of elite and popular dissatisfaction.

That's a different problem entirely. Actually, most monarchies that collapsed did so under less than competent policy making on the part of the monarch (i.e. Louis XIV's centralisation, culminating in Louis XVI's execution), external pressures (Germany, Habsburg Empire, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc.) or a combination (as was the case in Russia).

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a different problem entirely. Actually, most monarchies that collapsed did so under less than competent policy making on the part of the monarch (i.e. Louis XIV's centralisation), external pressures (Germany, Habsburg Empire, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc.) or a combination (as was the case in Russia).

"Examples which contradict my argument don't count because: reasons."

 

[Cutlass]

(1) USA is not monarchy
(2) USA have an unusual governmental system comparing to which is usually recommended now for young democracies.

There's not that much difference between the American system, and the European systems that you mislabeled as monarchies. They are constitutional republics with the remnants of a defunct monarchy still attached. As is, for example, Japan.

 

[Traitorfish]

Within the developed world, the greatest similarities and differences cut across nominal distinctions of "monarchy" and "republic". The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have almost identical governmental structures, while the republics of Ireland, France and Germany are quite different.

 

[Tahuti]

"Examples which contradict my argument don't count because: reasons."

Well, for some reason, you seemed to posit that popular and elite pressure against monarchies would eventually just flare up out of the blue. It didn't.