Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Traitorfish]

I didn't posit that they flared up "out of the blue". (I'm a Marxist, ferchrissake, our whole shtick is dissecting these kinds of revolts in tedious detail.) I posited that despite the magical powers attributed to a bejeweld bonnet by yourself and Snorrius, some monarchies collapsed and were replaced with republican governments, and that this has to be taken into account when asserting long-term historical trends.

 

[Tahuti]

I didn't posit that they flared up "out of the blue". I'm a Marxist, ferchrissake, our whole shtick is dissecting these kinds of revolts in tedious detail.

Well, it is probably something way more particular than just bourgeosie overthrowing their 'feudal overlords'.

 

[timtofly]

I am not sold on the monarchy ideal, but it would seem that the point Kaiserguard is trying to make is that the royalty is the cultural identity that people can look up to as a guidance factor even if they are just a figurehead. No one is going to admit they are gullible and being duped. The French did and then realized they ended up with a worse form and settled back down sheepishly to the fact they made an error in judgment. They did loose their cultural attachment, but replaced it slowly with something else that was not attached to a monarchy.

The whole social construct ideal was that the populace fared better under a monarchy as opposed to a more autocratic form. Humans want a leader that can empathize with them, not actually Lord it over them. The lording part was taken over by those appointed to carry out the daily mundane actual governance. The point of how such "governors" came into power may vary depending on how appeased the people were. If the King did the appointing it would be more oligarchical. If the people were allowed input, it would be more democratic.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, it is probably something way more particular than just bourgeosie overthrowing their 'feudal overlords'.

Doubtless. But here's the trick, that particularity applies across the broad. History is a vast array of particulars which general rules can only hope to describe in very approximate terms.

You don't get to attribute the successes of a governmental form to general rules and its failures to chance circumstance.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In what sense of democracy?

What else but an oligarchy could have settled the disputed election of 2000? The sitting president? The population at large?
What is commencing a war in Iraq on one person's say-so but monarchical? (The people's representatives could have voted not to fund the ongoing operation; would that they had).
When the demos says, "we want a monarch with a different kind of agenda," and that new monarch succeeds, what else is that but democracy?

I still see major elements of the idea of a mixed constitution in evidence in US political operation.

Had I read the OP more carefully, I could have contented myself with contesting the claim that we are a thalossocracy (whatever such a thing would be). Needlessly jumped on my mixed constitution hobby horse.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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).

You do realize that any collapsed government can always be blamed on less than competent policy making on the part of that government, right? If they had been competent enough to deal with whatever other circumstance they would still be there.

One of the qualitative measures of a government system is how the structure helps to minimize the chances of making those poor decisions. In that regard functioning monarchies are extremely poor. This bit about having a figurehead as a focal point for stewardship may have some merit, but expanding that into a call for monarchies as a suitable form for new governments to adopt is more than a stretch.

 

[jackelgull]

Yes, monarchy is not the hands down best solution for a new government, but for a functioning democracy to work it requires a well educated middle class that wants a democracy and is willing to stick with it. Not many new countries have that. In many African countries, there are still witch trials, and priests take advantage of ignorance to make money from these trials.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, monarchy is not the hands down best solution for a new government, but for a functioning democracy to work it requires a well educated middle class that wants a democracy and is willing to stick with it. Not many new countries have that. In many African countries, there are still witch trials, and priests take advantage of ignorance to make money from these trials.

As I said, democracy has a fatal flaw and unless the people are aware of the flaw and committed as a group to avoiding it democracy just will not work. Trying to install democracy in Iraq, for example, was just plain stupid. The Shi'a response, as should have been expected, was So as long as we are the majority we can just vote them out of existence? This is certainly efficient! We've been trying to kill them forever! Unless there is a very widespread acknowledgement that in some way or other everyone is in a minority to keep things in check democracy is a disaster.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, monarchy is not the hands down best solution for a new government, but for a functioning democracy to work it requires a well educated middle class that wants a democracy and is willing to stick with it. Not many new countries have that. In many African countries, there are still witch trials, and priests take advantage of ignorance to make money from these trials.

Monarchy is the best form of government, since more falls down on the skill and morals of one ruler, whereas in democracy, it falls on so many people at the same time that finally, we do not know who is to blame when things go wrong and who to credit when things go well.

 

[Traitorfish]

Monarchy is the best form of government, since more falls down on the skill and morals of one ruler, whereas in democracy, it falls on so many people at the same time that finally, we do not know who is to blame when things go wrong and who to credit when things go well.

Democracy forces us to deal with the merits of policies, rather than of individuals.

A Good Post.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Neddless to say it is all wrong in the OP. All the countries with high HDI have NOT monarchy as "form of government" but as "form of state". They in fact have the "general solution" so, a parlamentary democracy, as form of government. You cant talk about monarchy being a "form of government" in these countries since the king has nothing to do with the government. The king reigns but not rule.

 

[Tahuti]

Neddless to say it is all wrong in the OP. All the countries with high HDI have NOT monarchy as "form of government" but as "form of state". They in fact have the "general solution" so, a parlamentary democracy, as form of government. You cant talk about monarchy being a "form of government" in these countries since the king has nothing to do with the government. The king reigns but not rule.

People don't bother to read posts do they.

 

[Camikaze]

The monarch itself doesn't, yet I observe that the system of monarchy definitely changes the mentality of the ones who are really in power. Their political legitimacy no longer hinges on the popular will but the monarch. This entices to act as responsible stewards (i.e. create prosperity) and make them more willing to make unpopular decisions aimed with that particular goal, which also have more legitimacy as the monarch formally still promulgates them.

I dunno what you Dutch are like, but I can certainly say I've never heard anything like that said about Australia. Could be because the monarchy is so remote from Australian politics as to be essentially non-existent.

I find it fairly interesting to suggest that because there's less popular sovereignty, there'd be more responsible government.

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

I don't understand what this sentence means.

 

[Tahuti]

I dunno what you Dutch are like, but I can certainly say I've never heard anything like that said about Australia. Could be because the monarchy is so remote from Australian politics as to be essentially non-existent.

I find it fairly interesting to suggest that because there's less popular sovereignty, there'd be more responsible government.

Politics aside, the monarchy is of great symbolic value. We hold festivals (King's day, and in the past Queen's day) to celebrate the monarch's birthday.

While the king is has few formal political powers - including appointing mayors who are de-facto elected by the local councils - every law is signed by the king, and the king also gets to hold speeches regarding the cabinet's plans. Compared US politics, as well as the politics to republican European polities, political rethoric is fairly restrained. Populism just gets less traction thanks to the monarchy. Not surprisingly, the only populists with a notable base of support - Geert Wilders and the Far-Left Socialist Party - are implicitly republican.

I don't understand what this sentence means.

Is it that hard to link multinational corporations with lobbying?

 

[Camikaze]

Is it that hard to link multinational corporations with lobbying?

I would agree that multinational corporations lobby. Is that what the sentence I quoted means? (This is a genuine question - I really do not understand what you are meaning by that sentence)

 

[ParkCungHee]

If we are to view democracy as the ideology that equates demos with the chief political identity, DPRK is pretty much a legit democracy. Monarchy divides the state between those in power and those who are subjects. This paradoxically can give more liberties than in democracies because tyrannical decisions are no longer automatically legimised as 'popular will'.

I have to disagree with this pretty firmly. The DRPK can only be understood in the context of the ideologies of pre-occupation, and that of Korea as part of the Japanese Empire. I'd say out of all of these governments discussed, the DPRK has the strongest culture of Monarchy, in which "the people" are seen as a social reality with a relation to the monarch, than say, the British Monarchy, which is frequently legitimated through the people's democratic will.

 

[Traitorfish]

While the king is has few formal political powers - including appointing mayors who are de-facto elected by the local councils - every law is signed by the king, and the king also gets to hold speeches regarding the cabinet's plans. Compared US politics, as well as the politics to republican European polities, political rethoric is fairly restrained. Populism just gets less traction thanks to the monarchy. Not surprisingly, the only populists with a notable base of support - Geert Wilders and the Far-Left Socialist Party - are implicitly republican.

The most successful populist parties in the United Kingdom, the Democrat Unionists and UKIP, are also the most rigidly monarchist. You're generalising a peculiarly Dutch experience.

 

[Tahuti]

I have to disagree with this pretty firmly. The DRPK can only be understood in the context of the ideologies of pre-occupation, and that of Korea as part of the Japanese Empire. I'd say out of all of these governments discussed, the DPRK has the strongest culture of Monarchy, in which "the people" are seen as a social reality with a relation to the monarch, than say, the British Monarchy, which is frequently legitimated through the people's democratic will.

DPRK is a product of cognitive dissonance. At the same time, it is Communist, though in a non-Marxist way, having it wiped out from the constitution. It requires people to be formally equal, at any rate, since such adheres to a communist ideology. Yet, in order to justify the obviously unegalitarian nature of DPRK with the egalitarian nature of DPRK's ideology (save for the xenophobia against everything Non-Korean), Kim Il-Sung was literally made into a pseudogod. Formally, he is still in power. Nominal egalitarianism requires and invites for domination by charisma, and the Kims solved their vast lack of personal charisma by simply casting themselves as divine beings.

Anyway, it all happens to among North Koreans a sense democratic legitimacy. If completely free elections were to be held, you can be sure to expect the North Koreans will vote in favour of Kim Jong-Woon.

The most successful populist parties in the United Kingdom, the Democrat Unionists and UKIP, are also the most rigidly monarchist. You're generalising a peculiarly Dutch experience.

Regardless of political sympathies, UKIP's rethoric is still quite civilised compared to the PVV or - to give a British example - George Galloway. That being said, the advantages of monarchy to the political system in Britain seems to have been put underwater by the dogpiling British press.

 

[Traitorfish]

Regardless of political sympathies, UKIP's rethoric is still quite civilised compared to the PVV or - to give a British example - George Galloway. That being said, the advantages of monarchy to the political system in Britain seems to have been put underwater by the dogpiling British press.

UKIP may be more civilised than some of their more openly fascistoid cousins, yes. But the Democratic Unionist Party supported a thirty-year campaign of racial terrorism against British subjects and citizens, and even you might struggle to frame that as "civilised".

 

[ParkCungHee]

DPRK is a product of cognitive dissonance. At the same time, it is Communist, though in a non-Marxist way, having it wiped out from the constitution. It requires people to be formally equal, at any rate, since such adheres to a communist ideology. Yet, in order to justify the obviously unegalitarian nature of DPRK with the egalitarian nature of DPRK's ideology (save for the xenophobia against everything Non-Korean), Kim Il-Sung was literally made into a pseudogod. Formally, he is still in power. Nominal egalitarianism requires and invites for domination by charisma, and the Kims solved their vast lack of personal charisma by simply casting themselves as divine beings.

But this is the point. This analysis produced cognitive dissonance because it assumes you're starting from a Marxist-Leninist model, and then attempting to explain the aberrations from that away.

And I'm saying, you can understand the state a lot better by reading say, Cho Je-u or Sadao Araki then Marx. The DPRK is best understood as a traditional Korean state which has allowed in the nomeclaura of socialism, and the legitimating ideologies of Nationalism, in the way previous rulers adopted Buddhism and Confucianism.

Anyway, it all happens to among North Koreans a sense democratic legitimacy. If completely free elections were to be held, you can be sure to expect the North Koreans will vote in favour of Kim Jong-Woon.

I'm not sure that would happen. Not even on the grounds of support for the regime, but because I don't think North Korean's understand their relationship to Kim Jong-Un in those terms.