Monarchy in the democratic west of the 21st century

[Simon Darkshade]

Maybe the descendents of the Bourbons or the Bonapartes, but the House of Windsor/Saxe Coburg Gothe is descended from constitutional monarchs, and only extremely distantly connected to those whom you label as "dictators". Likewise the House of Bernadotte in Sweden, being descended from a general invited to be King.

 

[Magnus]

I think all official rulers should be elected by the population, whether ceremonial or not.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
on a president...

On france its a different story:
in france the prime minister takes care of foreign affairs while the president takes care of national affairs...
I putted it into much more simplicity than it is, and mi not sure if im 100% right but that is the story about.

Actually, to put it with simplicity, it's more the other way. France has a presidentialist system, where the president is offcourse the head of state with all the powers that it implies, and has the external policy at his charge. This is the model inherited from Charles De Gaulle, the founder of the V Republic. That's why you see both the french president and prime-minister in any european conference, while other countries send the leader of the government only. So, while in other countries (like Germany, Israel, Italy) the president has virtually no power, in France there is a terrible political battle between Chirac and Jospin going on to get to the Elisée next May.

Another very important thing in this matter is the question of how does the president gets to the job. In France, for example, the president is elected by universal suffrage in a 2 round election. In other countries, such as the cited above, the president is elected in the parliament, after an equilibrium between the political forces is achieved. This, IMO, empties a lot the presidential role, since he sort of becomes hostage of the polititians that elected him. So, although Rau (Ger) or Ciampi (Ita) may dissolve the Parliament, in practice they will never do that, since they owe their election to the deputies.

In my country, Portugal, for example, we have a mixed system. Our president has a little more power than the ones from Germany or Israel, but not as much as the French one (who is clearly the most important political figure of his country) or the Russian one. However, and even if he does not use his powers very often, his independence and freedom of action is secured by the election from the people.

A monarch, and to make it brief, does not have any legitimate reason to hold the position of head of state. When one becomes king or queen, he or she did not do anything to ocupy that position, other than being the son of the former monarch. But that's a decision of the british, or the dutch, or the danes...
Monarchy still has a lot of suporters in these countries. However, if a referendum was to be made in any european country that is a Republic, I doubt that the Monarchy would get more than 5 or 10% in any of them.

 

[willemvanoranje]

The Dutch royal house is very important to most of us Dutch. They represent our country (and do it well I think), but also are direct ancestors of the great Willem van Oranje who gave us our independency back in 1568-1648 and are part of our nationalistic pride. I think that's a very good reason. I'd like to add that I wouldn't know why we should become a republic without royalty? Those millions can be used elsewhere, true, but those millions can be financed by asking 30 eurocent extra taxes from every Dutch citizen.......I don't think anyone would mind.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I never said you can't get those millions elsewhere, I just said that if there are so many people who are suffering from hunger and diseases, why shouldn't the government use every existing spare cent (or guilden) they have to help those people?
You can't seriously tell me that the fact that if someone is grand grand grand grand grand grand son of someone who did a good thing for your country has the right to have the most honorable role in the country (boycott prime minister or whatever you have there), live in millions, while other people suffer, and while no other man or women, as good as he is, as diplomatic as he is, as more educated or more eligible to do the honorable part can be elected.
I never said a country should not live with an honorable figure, but lets face it, you only say its good because its in your tradition and you hate to admit the fact that its still aristocrat to give someone such an important role just because he was born to some family. Like the one who posted before me, countries without a monarch tradition will just figure it out as silly in a democratic world, where everyone is equal and everyone gets equal chances.
It doesnt matter if the person is good or not, or if the millions used on him can be achieved in some other way, the fact that he was chosen from ONE family only because he belonged to that CERTAIN family, for generations, illuminates a lot of the fundementalistics of democracy; Pluralism, Equal Chances, and a few others I can dig out of my Citizenship class book.
Lets say I am now born in the netherlands, I am a better man than the prince, I am more educated, I am more smart, more dimplomatic and all that. Do I have the chance to be elected to that role? No. That's not democracy, thats is aristocracy in the same form it was 500 years ago, only with much less control over the country. But the fact that he doesnt work as hard as some people do for way less dignified life and life level, makes it the same aristocratic base that was used with kings and peasents, doesnt it?

Heh, I just noticed now the sub-concious meaning of the 30 cent from every citizen you mentioned. So just because he is from a kingdom family, if the government is due to donate to the poor and sick, it should be taken out of the purses of all normal citizens but not from the prince/king. did you think about that while posting that?

 

[Jimcat]

Just to play devil's advocate for the monarchists...

If your country elects its leaders, then the requirement for leadership is, at the bottom line, a popularity contest. The leaders are the ones who can most effectively sway the masses to agree with them. The potential leaders spend more time and energy on winning elections than they do on actually governing. Also, only the most ambitious will be willing to go through the grueling and expensive process of being elected. This will include a few dedicated idealists, but mostly you will get people who want power so badly that they will turn their whole lives upside down to get it (and sometimes ruin others' lives as well). Are these really the people you want ruling you?

If you have a hereditary ruling class, then you give the people no choice as to who rules them -- but that sword cuts both ways. You are also giving the rulers no choice as to whether they want to rule. A hereditary ruler isn't there by ambition, and didn't have to spend their whole life scheming and advertising themselves to get into power. The trappings and ceremonies of royalty are not to remind the people of how special their rulers are; rather, they are to remind the rulers of the awesome responsibility they bear towards their people. Ideally, you can train a hereditary ruler from an early age, and by the time they are old enough to assume their duties, they will be a trained specialist in government who understands and respects their duties.

Of course, like any other system, this often doesn't work nearly as well in practice as in theory. If you bring someone up believing from birth that their lot in life is to rule, you could get a concerned and largely benevolent monarch who understands their duty to the people and tries to do what's right for them (e.g., Queen Victoria). Or you could get an arrogant ruler who believes that their will takes precedence over the whole country, and never mind what the commoners think (e.g., Victoria's grandson, Kaiser Wilhelm II). And on the positive side for elected rulers, they know that they rule at the will of the people, and can lose their power if the people become dissatisfied. Hereditary rulers have no such check.

The final word, at least in my opinion, is that neither democracy nor monarchy has any guarantee of producing a better leader. Most of the world today has chosen elected leadership, and we live with its drawbacks as well as its advantages.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MCdread
Another very important thing in this matter is the question of how does the president gets to the job. In France, for example, the president is elected by universal suffrage in a 2 round election. In other countries, such as the cited above, the president is elected in the parliament, after an equilibrium between the political forces is achieved. This, IMO, empties a lot the presidential role, since he sort of becomes hostage of the polititians that elected him. So, although Rau (Ger) or Ciampi (Ita) may dissolve the Parliament, in practice they will never do that, since they owe their election to the deputies.

That's true but at least in case of Germany that was done on purpose. The President should not dissolve the parliament, cause that was what he was constantly doing during the late years of the Weimar Republic ultimately destroying it. I think the more distributed the power, the better.

Originally posted by IceBlaze
You can't seriously tell me that the fact that if someone is grand grand grand grand grand grand son of someone who did a good thing for your country has the right to have the most honorable role in the country (boycott prime minister or whatever you have there), live in millions, while other people suffer, and while no other man or women, as good as he is, as diplomatic as he is, as more educated or more eligible to do the honorable part can be elected.
I never said a country should not live with an honorable figure, but lets face it, you only say its good because its in your tradition and you hate to admit the fact that its still aristocrat to give someone such an important role just because he was born to some family. Like the one who posted before me, countries without a monarch tradition will just figure it out as silly in a democratic world, where everyone is equal and everyone gets equal chances.

Couldn't have said it better I guess, but I don't want to tell you how to do it, after all the Netherlands are my favourite country, despite the Royals.

Jimcat: You're right about the usual failure of elected leaders, but is the answer to that installing a dictator or monarch?

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by Hitro

Jimcat: You're right about the usual failure of elected leaders, but is the answer to that installing a dictator or monarch?

No, the answer is to get smarter voters, or limit the franchise.

That's not the only possible answer. You could have your leader selected at birth by lottery, instead of inheriting power. Or you could make candidates take tests, that way you would get someone who wanted the job but you could select for more desirable characteristics. Or you could have the head of state appointed by an elected body. Or, for the total capitalists, you could auction the offices to the highest bidder.

My point is, for all of the above methods, you could find some advantages and some flaws. I think that any method of selecting a leader is going to be prone to risk. If there were a perfect form of government, I think someone would have discovered it by now. We've tried just about everything, and they've all run into problems.

As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others."

 

[Whiskey Priest]

The Canadian Government has an interesting solution to this problem. We have two houses in the Federal government, the House of Commons and the Senate. The house of commons is elected every five years (althought the current governement can dissolve parliament at any time). The Senate is appointed by the house of commons, and there is only two ways to leave the Senate, Die or Resign. All bills have to be passed by both houses. This was set up to offer a "sober second thought" to any bill passed by the house of commons. Of course, this system has it's downsides. Some senators don't even vote. They get appointed, then they collect their salarty and then don't even show up when the senate is in session. Some don't even live in this country anymore!

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Jimcat
My point is, for all of the above methods, you could find some advantages and some flaws. I think that any method of selecting a leader is going to be prone to risk. If there were a perfect form of government, I think someone would have discovered it by now. We've tried just about everything, and they've all run into problems.

I couldn't agree more. But then why not giving everybody the (of course just theoretical) chance to get head of state and let the people decide? I don't see anything advocating monarchy in your words.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

But then why not giving everybody the (of course just theoretical) chance to get head of state and let the people decide? I don't see anything advocating monarchy in your words.

That's about my oppinion on the matter. in my country the Royal family (the Saxo-Coburg gota's) can't lean on much respect of the general population.The only monarch that is really admired in our country is King Albert I ,mainly for his action's in WWI ,Leading the Belgian force's at the front against the german's.Leopold II sqaundered a fortune in orgy's and party's on the expense of the Congo.Leopold III betrayed Belgium with his friendly relation's with hitler. There are rumour's about Boudewijn's part into the Assasination of the first prime minister of Congo ,Patrice Lumumba.
And our current king and prins are both pretty dumb and especialy unemotional leader's.
Therefore i really have my doubt's in the qualification's for head of state.And yes Why does a head of state has to cost so much?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Jimcat
As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others."

How drunk was he when he said that?


I've heard that the Monarchy in England produces more revenue than it costs... with all the tourism the 'official' residence draw, and the attention of the events, and the media clammoring.... all a lot of harmless fun. Last time I was in England I was told that the Queen can still tax blinds, among other useless things, as her only official power.

And who said Americans don't know anything about hereditary ruling... does anyone think Bush Jr. would be President if not for his daddy?
There are a lot of elected people in America whos main qualification is their last name. For example, we have half a dozen Kennedy relatives holding office, we've got Jeb Bush here in Florida, and many others. I'm sure the U.S. isn't the only country where elections can be decided by family association.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

In a sense the same thing happens in the US - whenever anything happens with the Bush's, Kennedy's, or Clinton's we hear about it all over the media, and likewise with all celeberties.

 

[MrPresident]

I thought Churchill said that "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

He's a another good quote by Churchill.
"The monarchy is so extraordinarily useful. When Britain wins a battle she shouts, "God save the Queen"; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister."

I've heard that the Monarchy in England produces more revenue than it costs...

This may be true but if there was no monarchy how much more money could be made. Think about it, how much more would you pay to go inside Buckingham Palace rather than stand about a mile away?

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by Hitro

I couldn't agree more. But then why not giving everybody the (of course just theoretical) chance to get head of state and let the people decide? I don't see anything advocating monarchy in your words.

For starters, I wasn't actually recommending monarchy. In my original post I said that I was just playing devil's advocate.

But there are some problems with "giving everybody the ... chance to get head of state and let[ting] the people decide". The two biggest problems are:

1. Most people are not intelligent, educated, or informed enough to make proper decisions about who should run the country.

2. Most of the people whose names get on the ballot are not qualified to run the country.

The undesirable result of our current system is that we wind up with crooks, ancient actors, or well-connected scions of rich families in the positions of power, instead of people who could actually do some good for the country.

 

[Magnus]

Originally posted by Jimcat


1. Most people are not intelligent, educated, or informed enough to make proper decisions about who should run the country.

Wow, does THAT comment smack of elitism. And who are you to judge your fellow countrymen?

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by Magnus


Wow, does THAT comment smack of elitism. And who are you to judge your fellow countrymen?

Someone who's had to live with their boneheaded decisions all my life.

 

[Knowltok]

Now you guys are opening the debate up into the quality of voters on decision making. I too question their ability. At least in the USA, a larger add budget is seen as an advantage in getting elected. Like the rest of advertising, if you get the picture in front of them enough, they will want to buy it. If you get the endorsement of their favorite special interest they will ignore the rest of the issues and vote with their special interest group. Their are people that determine their vote solely on the issue of abotrtion. That is their right, but it seems near-sighted to me considering how much more their is to government.

I think that democracy will produce the results it deserves based upon the collective wisdom and intelligence of its people. This has many factors, and is not limitted to just education. Keep in mind that Hitler was elected.

 

[Magnus]

So what is your suggestion to correct the 'problem' eh? Every vote weighted according to IQ? Or perhaps you could be appointed minister of voting (you could not be voted in, of course, because those 'idiots' woudln't see the light and realize you are the right man for the job, due to your superior intellect) and then you could decide who could vote and who couldn't by using your impeccable judgement capacity. I am sure those handful of people who were then allowed to vote would all be in agreement with you so you would no longer need elections and you could rule by decree - wait a minute now we have a dictatorship!!!!

It is easy to point the finger at others and much harder to look at ourselves, for we are all to blame for the failures of our country, just as we should all pat ourselves on the back for its successes.

 

[Magnus]

Originally posted by Knowltok


I think that democracy will produce the results it deserves based upon the collective wisdom and intelligence of its people. This has many factors, and is not limitted to just education. Keep in mind that Hitler was elected.

Wrong. Hitler LOST the presidential election, he was APPOINTED Chancellor of the Reichstag by President Hindenburg. Read your history books.