Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Snorrius]

Are you sure about that? What do you think of the modern British government, and the dissolution of the Empire? External forces?

British empire was not dissoluted. It was weakened but not entirely disbanded. We can say that it became "constitutional" . But the most important is that UK have not gone through revolution which usually wipes out state elites and radically downgrade it, so they are able to effectively oppose the biggest thalassocracy of all times .

Also, since I remember you brought up this topic in a thread about the situation in Iraq, what are your thoughts about the time the British actually installed a monarchy in the country?

"London gives, London takes away".

It would be interesting to me to see how you would compare it to Jordan, the other nation the Brits decided to do this in and arguably the more successful one.

EDIT: It also isn't dependent on exporting oil for external support, it seems, which makes it an even more ideal candidate for discussion within the framework you have created.

Well, actually this framework is more about common properties than individual examples. The main observation is that monarchies are more effective for higher HDI than "democracies", so we try to find out common reasons.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, actually this framework is more about common properties than individual examples. The main observation is that monarchies are more effective for higher HDI than "democracies", so we try to find out common reasons.

While trying to ignore the fact that your successful 'monarchies' are parliamentary republics with figurehead monarchs, thus they could just as easily (in fact more easily) be used to support the 'observation' that parliamentary republics are more effective than whatever else might come along.

 

[Snorrius]

While trying to ignore the fact that your successful 'monarchies' are parliamentary republics with figurehead monarchs, thus they could just as easily (in fact more easily) be used to support the 'observation' that parliamentary republics are more effective than whatever else might come along.

"Republic with monarch" is nonsense. "Parliamentary republic with figurehead monarch" is called "constitutional monarchy". It is a monarchy where monarch's powers significantly weakened but it is still monarchy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Parliamentary republic with figurehead monarch" is called "constitutional monarchy". It is a monarchy where monarch's powers significantly weakened

to that of a figurehead

but it is still monarchy

in name.

So that's fine. Tell this country that has come asking for your help to have itself a figurehead monarch, if you think that will do them some good. If what they were asking in their question was what kind of actual functioning system of governance they should have, rather than what label could be applied to their figurehead, then tell them to go study the institutions through which decisions are made and enforced in the high HDI countries.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Republic with monarch" is nonsense. "Parliamentary republic with figurehead monarch" is called "constitutional monarchy". It is a monarchy where monarch's powers significantly weakened but it is still monarchy.

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the reality of this 'it is still a monarchy'. Pick any one of your 'monarchies' from your top ten. Now let's say the royal plane on it's way to the royal family reunion crashes right on top of the chosen royal hotel, and kills them all. Every last person listed on the succession. Damn the luck. Now tell me how this calamitous event would alter the functioning of government in that country.

 

[Tahuti]

Every last person listed on the succession. Damn the luck. Now tell me how this calamitous event would alter the functioning of government in that country.

It is the effects of a monarchy we are debating, not what monarchs do themselves. I personally think a powerful monarchy is desirable because it brings full accountable and attention on the skill and morals of persons that are individually known, though the rational argument why constitutional monarchies bring economic benefits to nations is the fostering of a culture of stewardship among its elected governments.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It is the effects of a monarchy we are debating, not what monarchs do themselves. I personally think a powerful monarchy is desirable because it brings full accountable and attention on the skill and morals of persons that are individually known, though the rational argument why constitutional monarchies bring economic benefits to nations is the fostering of a culture of stewardship among its elected governments.

So it's advantageous because one individually known person is accountable, but it doesn't matter what that individual does?

Huh?

 

[Tahuti]

So it's advantageous because one individually known person is accountable, but it doesn't matter what that individual does?

Huh?

Well, the OP specifically mentioned constitutional monarchies. In powerful monarchies, everything the individual monarch does will be important, whereas in constitutional monarchies it is the system that counts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is the effects of a monarchy we are debating, not what monarchs do themselves. I personally think a powerful monarchy is desirable because it brings full accountable and attention on the skill and morals of persons that are individually known, though the rational argument why constitutional monarchies bring economic benefits to nations is the fostering of a culture of stewardship among its elected governments.

You guys are assigning 'effects' to 'having a monarchy' that are far easier to explain by attributing them to other causes. If the monarch has no authority to actually do anything what is this mechanism that produces the effects? I contend that the vast majority of the government proceeds without even a passing thought to there even being a monarch, much less impose upon themselves a 'culture of stewardship' over it.

As to powerful monarchies...a despot by any other name is still a despot, and I don't know of any monarchy that managed to consistently manage succession such that really grotesque despots didn't find their way to the throne. That's what got almost all the monarchies cut off at the knees, and will likely get the very few that are left.

If they suddenly had the power of a real king, most of these figurehead monarchs we are talking about would probably take to eating babies for breakfast.

 

[Tahuti]

You guys are assigning 'effects' to 'having a monarchy' that are far easier to explain by attributing them to other causes. If the monarch has no authority to actually do anything what is this mechanism that produces the effects? I contend that the vast majority of the government proceeds without even a passing thought to there even being a monarch, much less impose upon themselves a 'culture of stewardship' over it.

It is my contention that otherwise democratically elected governments within a constitutional monarchy are less susceptible to popular pressure, and thus more capable of taking impopular but beneficial reforms.

 

[Senethro]

These arguments are kind of dumb because the definitions of what a monarchy is are being stretched unreasonably. The goalposts have been mounted on casters for easy mobility.

So what about something democracy actually does pretty well. There are lots of examples in history of violence associated with the succession process. How are these monarchs selected and how is power transferred between them?

 

[Tahuti]

These arguments are kind of dumb because the definitions of what a monarchy is are being stretched unreasonably. The goalposts have been mounted on casters for easy mobility.

Monarchy: A polity with a individual aristocratic head of state.

Can't get simpler than that. Or moving goalposts further for that matter.

So what about something democracy actually does pretty well. There are lots of examples in history of violence associated with the succession process. How are these monarchs selected and how is power transferred between them?

Democracies are not immune to succession crises either, and can often be extremely violent. The Spanish Civil War happened in response to the outcome of a democratic election.

Monarchical succession crises usually tend to be a bit more private and smaller scale. It involves a limited number of actors who do not have a mandate by the people and thus do not have the power or will to draft civilians into that conflict. Certainly not the total war affairs like most civil wars that have happened in democracies, especially in Africa and Latin America.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is my contention that otherwise democratically elected governments within a constitutional monarchy are less susceptible to popular pressure, and thus more capable of taking impopular but beneficial reforms.

How is that supposed to work, exactly? Elected representative goes strongly against the will of his constituents he gets boosted at the next election, monarch or no monarch.


Member of Parliament: Ah, this whole issue really has me down.
American congressman: Yeah, me too.
MP: I mean, I can see what's right, no question about it.
AC: Clear as day.
MP: But it just won't play at home. I vote for it I'm out on my arse.
AC: Me too, though in America we don't say arse.
MP: Ah well, it was a good promising career, but I'll just have to piss it away. Probably get a peck on the cheek from the queen on my way out though.
AC: We don't say that in America either, so I'll just vote against on our side of the pond and keep my job.

 

[Senethro]

Democracies are not immune to succession crises either, and can often be extremely violent. The Spanish Civil War happened in response to the outcome of a democratic election.

Monarchical succession crises usually tend to be a bit more private and smaller scale. It involves a limited number of actors who do not have a mandate by the people and thus do not have the power or will to draft civilians into that conflict. Certainly not the total war affairs like most civil wars that have happened in democracies, especially in Africa and Latin America.

Ugh I knew this would most likely be a waste of time so thank you for clearing that up quickly.

You haven't presented a positive argument here. You've said "nuh uh democracies can have problems too" and then completely sidestepped the question of how succession under monarchy should be done. You might as well have not replied at all.

Total war is a relatively modern invention that occurred after many nations had abandoned or curtailed the power of their monarchies. Countries formed more recently have often adopted forms of government without passing through a stage of monarchy. Its disingenuous to claim total war is a feature of succession crises of democracies when monarchy is anachronistic with total war. Your last sentence is also an obvious falsehood.

 

[Camikaze]

Succession within the monarchy can be a problem obviously, but the existence of a constitutional monarch would seem to assist in the succession of governments. A government's legitimacy is due to its appointment by the monarch, which acts as a clearly recognisable rather than fairly amorphous sovereign ('the people'). Australia's governments only rely upon this sort of sovereignty in the most technical sense, but the connection is likely less remote in other constitutional monarchies. Smooth succession is only one benefit, though.

 

[Cutlass]

How is that supposed to work, exactly? Elected representative goes strongly against the will of his constituents he gets boosted at the next election, monarch or no monarch.


Member of Parliament: Ah, this whole issue really has me down.
American congressman: Yeah, me too.
MP: I mean, I can see what's right, no question about it.
AC: Clear as day.
MP: But it just won't play at home. I vote for it I'm out on my arse.
AC: Me too, though in America we don't say arse.
MP: Ah well, it was a good promising career, but I'll just have to piss it away. Probably get a peck on the cheek from the queen on my way out though.
AC: We don't say that in America either, so I'll just vote against on our side of the pond and keep my job.

If the elected representatives are less susceptible to popular pressure, then they are much less likely to make necessary reforms. And much more likely to do the things reformers will have to undue at a later date. The Queen didn't do anything to stop Thatcher.

 

[Tahuti]

You haven't presented a positive argument here. You've said "nuh uh democracies can have problems too" and then completely sidestepped the question of how succession under monarchy should be done. You might as well have not replied at all.

Actually, I did. Shortly after I pointed democracies had their flaws too, I also pointed out succession crises in monarchies tend to be smaller scale and avoid situations of total war.

No political system is immune to succession crisis, though I prefer the system that most limited in that aspect, thank you.

Also, try to approach your opponents friendlier. Take it as a free advice!

 

[kochman]

If the elected representatives are less susceptible to popular pressure, then they are much less likely to make necessary reforms. And much more likely to do the things reformers will have to undue at a later date. The Queen didn't do anything to stop Thatcher.

To stop Thatcher what?

But no, the queen didn't, nor could she have.

 

[Senethro]

Actually, I did. Shortly after I pointed democracies had their flaws too, I also pointed out succession crises in monarchies tend to be smaller scale and avoid situations of total war.

No political system is immune to succession crisis, though I prefer the system that most limited in that aspect, thank you.

Also, try to approach your opponents friendlier. Take it as a free advice!

Sidestep again and repetition of the obvious falsehood. It takes just a little knowledge of european medieval or classical history to see the ugly succession crises that occur. As to the positive effects of democracy I submit the long period of relative peace in Europe since WW2. We get rid of most autocracies and suddenly things are pretty quiet by and large. Funny that.

So again: how should your modern monarch be selected and succeeded?

If you can't handle a little hostility then you're not ready to be subjugated, peasant. Practice more bowing and scraping.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Shortly after I pointed democracies had their flaws too, I also pointed out succession crises in monarchies tend to be smaller scale and avoid situations of total war.

No political system is immune to succession crisis, though I prefer the system that most limited in that aspect, thank you.

The USA recently pulled through a succession crisis with no aristocratic head of state and, not only no total war, but no war at all. What do you make of that?

Monarchy: A polity with a individual aristocratic head of state.

How is the aristocracy constituted in your polity? (since the monarch is drawn from that class) Is it hereditary? In this day and age, it might be a hard sell to get your underclasses to believe that there is intrinsically better blood. Or is it open? More of a meritocracy?

And how much and what kinds actual power within the governance system does your monarch need to possess in order to exert this positive influence you say he'll have: of making the democratically elected legislature less susceptible to popular pressure?