The Right of Democracy

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In a democracy, citizens have the right to vote in their preferred form of government. This is where the hypothetical question arises.

Should citizens in democracies have the right to vote in a party which will abolish the democracy, if the citizens have full and prior knowledge that this party will probably do so? In short, do the citizens have the right to change their form of government?

I am a monarchist, as some of you may know. My country is a republic, and is also very restrictive towards parties that may in any way change the republican system. Therefore, to gain my desired constitutional monarchy, I believe that the citizens should have the right to vote in a democratic, monarchist party, and have it attempt to institute a monarchy, even though it is against the republican ideal.

[KarlXII]

Well, take the Communist Party in the USA. It was quickly banned from elections, and it was typical for known supporters to be jailed or deported, immigrants were asked if they were affiliated with the party, if they were, they were denied citizenship.

Should the members have been able to vote for their party or support it without fear of reprisal? Yes, however, the party was being funded and supported by the Soviet Union, rumored to have engaged in Espionage, and included left wing and anarchist radicals that were set on the overthrowing of the Government, of course, this is considered treason.

So, down to my opinion. A person should have the freedom to vote for a government that will transition from a Democracy to a Fascist state or Monarchy, peacefully of course, they would have to do it democratically, through election, and also have to deal with reprisals from the population that supports Democratic government. But if the person and the party they vote for supports and pursues active violence in an attempt to overthrow the legal government, they should be jailed, deported, and tried on the level of treason.

[Kralizec]

I think the question is incomplete. After having voted in an authoritarian regime (be it a monarchy or a simple dictatorship) do they relinquish the right of having democracy reinstalled? If yes, then you could argue the new regime is based on (tacit) consent.

Burke once wrote a rebuttal to a certain Dr. Price who had argued, put shortly, in favour of democracy and that the English actually did have the right (instead of just being entitled to) to chose their own king, but didn't excercise it: basicly tacit consent. Presumably he said so to avoid persecution.
This was nonsense according to Burke because, among other reasons, the Parliament had at the conclusion of the Glorious Revolution sworn allegiance to King William and Mary; and not only their own allegiance but also of future generations. Even if the English people had the right to chose the king at that moment they relinquished it immediately, via the Parliament.
Thomas Paine then wrote a rebuttal to Burke's argument saying that it was impossible for any man to manage affairs after his death, and that the pretense of being able to do so was disgusting. He didn't think that the Parliament of the past had the right or the ability to bind future generations to anything.

In conclusion: it's not unthinkable that a nation does vote to establish a dictatorship. That dictatorship might even maintain itself for several generations. But since you can't argue that your ancestors had relinquished certain rights on your behalf, a dictorship can never make the moral claim that the people have relinquished their right to chose the government.

EDIT: about parties, I don't think that any organisation should be forbidden who seeks to change the law while abiding it while it stands.
I wrote a short essay about this topic for a university course, democratie en rechtstaat a couple of months ago. I'm in favour of "entrenching" against radical or hastily, ill-considered change by means of constitutions and bills of rights. I think that any attempt to keep them from happening forever is going to backfire given enough time though.

[Redleg]

Interesting question. I would like to say there should be a balance with parties that advocate the destruction of democracy not being allowed. Bit that in essence violates what is great about a democracy or as most are set up a democratic republic. So I because I am a firm believer that a democracy and its many forms is the best overall type of government and a firm believer in free speech - got to go with Yes allow all.

Now that also means if the parties begin to plot violence to bring about that change - then off to jail they get to go for wanting to violate the law of the land.

[Ice]

I'd say yes, but you really are screwing future generations and giving them no say in the matter if you elect on these parties. This would be easier to implant than reverse. I voted no.

[Kralizec]

Clearly Kush' opinion is at odds with democracy. We should hunt him down.

[yesdachi]

If the people want it, put it on the ballot. If enough people want it they will have it. Isn’t that what democracy is all about, getting what you want? ~D

[Rhyfelwyr]

If the people want it, put it on the ballot. If enough people want it they will have it. Isn’t that what democracy is all about, getting what you want? ~D

Not in the UK. :no:

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes. Democracy will overstay its welcome soon enough.

[CrossLOPER]

No. As Kush pointed out, the setup eats its own tail.


Yes. Democracy will overstay its welcome soon enough.
I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

No, because then it is obviously not what you crave.

[Hax]

A balance.

The people must be protected for their own good. For the Greater Good. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY)

[Viking]

I voted

Yes - all undemocratic parties should be allowed in the name of democracy.

but my own opinion is that all undemocratic parties should be allowed in the name of freedom.

If these parties get elected and tries to abolish democracy, they should be denied doing so; based on the constitution or whatever, the reasoning is not so important. :clown:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If these parties get elected and tries to abolish democracy, they should be denied doing so; based on the constitution or whatever, the reasoning is not so important. :clown:

What if the party gains a large enough majority or enough support to change the constitution? Is it then alright?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Certain behaviors can and should be curtailed in the interest of societal safety.

In a Democracy, the existence of a political party -- provided they are not actively breaking the law or calling on/encouraging others to do so -- should never be curtailed. Freedom of political expression must be extended to the loons and idiots so as to preserve the full range of freedom of expression.

However, the public is free to (and should be free to) consider members of such parties to be idiots, poltroons, perverts etc.

Freedom to express your views is matched by my freedom to reject and belittle them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In a Democracy, the existence of a political party -- provided they are not actively breaking the law or calling on/encouraging others to do so -- should never be curtailed. Freedom of political expression must be extended to the loons and idiots so as to preserve the full range of freedom of expression.

Why are parties who believe in a more authoritarian - or even just a different - manner of governance necessarily idiots or loons?

[Viking]

What if the party gains a large enough majority or enough support to change the constitution? Is it then alright?

It isn't alright, but there isn't necessarily much one could do.

But a new idea came to mind; perhaps democracy is not holy; as long as the state is weak it does perhaps not matter that much whether it is democratic or not. Being a politician could just be another job that requires a certain education, like any other jobs. Are judges elected by the people? No, yet they hold much power in one aspect.

So, ok, I might just have contradicted what I said earlier. What I fear is the state gaining more control over people, mainly that. Maybe I am an enemy of democracy myself.

So to conclude, I am against parties abolishing democracy, if the party(ies) intend to take the power itself/themselves. Parties that wish to do so should be stopped. Still I do not want to ban them from the elections.

[PBI]

I voted "no". I agree with Kush; the authority of the voters is not limitless, and they certainly do not (or at least should not) have the right to disenfranchise future generations and force them to accept their choice of party in perpetuity. A party which promises to abolish democracy should be barred from standing, and the power to suspend elections should be defined as being outside the authority of the elected government.

Quite aside from that fact I would utterly distrust the motives of any party which promises to abolish democracy as soon as they are in power. But it is not unprecedented for a wave of populist sentiment to be ridden to get a party elected against the best interests of the voters, and it is necessary that the voters must always have the power to correct that mistake at the next election rather than being lumbered with a bad choice forever.

[PanzerJaeger]

I wonder... if you become the target of that which you so crave, will you still support it?

Politics is like any other human endeavor; a social progression. With the growing complexity of most issues, depending on the common people - who tend towards emotion instead of substance - to make informed decisions may begin to be seen as a liability. I foresee the voice of the people taking on an increasingly hands off role in society, taking a back seat to a professional political class. This can already been seen in most Western nations, with a large part of their politicians groomed from birth and coming from specialized institutions. As of now they are still beholden to the will of the people, but it doesn't take much for that line to be crossed. It has in the past and it will again.

[CountArach]

Banning parties is the first step down the road of Authoritarianism...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Politics is like any other human endeavor; a social progression. With the growing complexity of most issues, depending on the common people - who tend towards emotion instead of substance - to make informed decisions may begin to be seen as a liability. I foresee the voice of the people taking on an increasingly hands off role in society, taking a back seat to a professional political class. This can already been seen in most Western nations, with a large part of their politicians groomed from birth and coming from specialized institutions. As of now they are still beholden to the will of the people, but it doesn't take much for that line to be crossed. It has in the past and it will again.

I agree with this completely. The political parties in the UK at least are filled with career politicians, more concerned with getting as many MP financial privileges as possible rather than any sort of ideology. Its the only reason I would even consider voting for the tartan-brigade SNP over New Labour.

I think that this will lead to a rise in radical parties if economic conditions continue to decline, and should these extreme left/right parties be banned or oppressed, then the people will realise that putting pieces of paper in a ballot box will not translate to representing themselves in parliament.

And then, well....

EDIT: And I second EMFM, why does opposing democracy make you a loonatic?

[Craterus]

Banning parties is the first step down the road of Authoritarianism...

Ah, 11 minutes too late...

:bow:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd have to say that this is one issue I can't quite make up my mind on. On one hand, I agree with what Panzer said - the majority of the populace is rarely well enough informed to make a proper decision. On the other hand, my government did that to me over the Lisbon Treaty, and I am quite angry at them.

[m52nickerson]

All should be allowed. If the majority of people support and them vote in a party that is undemocratic, then that is the will of the people. They have just used democracy to change the government they live under, for better or worse.

[Incongruous]

The ideal of Democracy, I do not think, ever took into account the possibility of tyranny via the ballot box. When Democracy is founded, it is usually due to popular support of it and righteous damantion of whatever preceeded it, usually a form of tyranny or monarchy, and no one thinks as they sign up for the virtues of Democracy, that one day its most important foundations may be its own demise. So perhaps the ability of such repugnent groups to take part in elections is not fundamental to the idal of Democracy, otherwise it would not be against Tyranny, which it is, and so would not be Democracy.

However, if Democracy is created properly, with a constitution that respects the humanity of all it's current and future citizens and their right to individual liberty and life that cannot be altered, no Tyranny may ever take place again. This of coarse shows the fallacy of Westminster Democracy or whatever it is they call themselves.

[KarlXII]

The thing about democracy is that the people are allowed to vote for their opinion, and if a law was passed that someone did not agree with, this law was voted in the majority either by the Legislative Body or by the community, your vote was cast, your opinion was heard, but ultimately the majority of people agreed. However, in an authoritan or purely monarchist government, laws are normally passed based off 1 vote: the head of the government. Now, what if one of these laws took away your property, Evil_Maniac, had you deported based off race or creed? You, and the people in general, would be powerless to do anything.

[KarlXII]

On one hand, I agree with what Panzer said - the majority of the populace is rarely well enough informed to make a proper decision.

So we should leave everything up to 1 person, 1 person who himself may not be well informed, tyrannical or even mad (see Hitler)?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

However, in an authoritan or purely monarchist government, laws are normally passed based off 1 vote: the head of the government. Now, what if one of these laws took away your property, Evil_Maniac, had you deported based off race or creed?

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?


So we should leave everything up to 1 person, 1 person who himself may not be well informed, tyrannical or even mad (see Hitler)?

Hardly. You can read the second part of the post you quote if you wish.

[ICantSpellDawg]

People in my class bracket are doing well under Chinese authoritarianism. I still hold the concept of "democracy" dear, but there are and have always been merits to despotism or hybrid despotic-republics.

Not allowing extremists in government may not ensure democracy either. Exclude them when they have enough support and you could de-legitimize the political process. Include them when they have a bit of support and you run the risk of power being democratically usurped. The answer lies in the circumstances, doesn't it?

[Lord Winter]

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?

What about their children then? Or the generation after that? Or after that? Of after that? What if they evently tire from absolute despotic rule? Then how should they chose there government if you remove the basis of any right to chose?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What about their children then? Or the generation after that? Or after that? Of after that? What if they evently tire from absolute despotic rule? Then how should they chose there government if you remove the basis of any right to chose?

Through violence, you know, like they have traditionally done it. Or you could hand over the keys, but that might not be a great precedent to set.

[Incongruous]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance. When has there ever been a good king? To be sure many have done good, but they have done bad also. Why give ourselves up to such men? Better tha we all do good and bad together, everyone is to praise and everyone is to blame. Plus we don't have to wait till a monarch has timed out to change coarse.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance.

Who says a monarchy has to be absolute? I've explained what I think is ideal before.


When has there ever been a good king?

I think there have been plenty.

[Incongruous]

Care to name any?
The goodness of Kings is held to a different standard to that of other men, thus there are many good kings in history, one good rights a thousand wrongs, no?
King Edward III would not hold up against modern concepts of a good man.

[KarlXII]

Who says a monarchy has to be absolute? I've explained what I think is ideal before. .

A monarchy is the absolute rule of a monarch, anything less of that is something else. If nobles are voting on issues, you still have a democracy, albeit an oligarchy. If you install a legislative body, a Senate or Parliament, you have representative democracy. Who says a monarhcy has to be absolute? The very definiton of monarchy does.

[CountArach]

How would monarchy ever work? History has shown that, in Europe at least, rising and informed men tire of it quickly, feeling themselves and their kind equal to the task of governance. When has there ever been a good king? To be sure many have done good, but they have done bad also. Why give ourselves up to such men? Better tha we all do good and bad together, everyone is to praise and everyone is to blame. Plus we don't have to wait till a monarch has timed out to change coarse.
There is one good King out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Khesar_Namgyel_Wangchuck
Of course, he is a good King because he is Democratising his country :wink:

[KarlXII]

That is why I don't advocate absolute or despotic rule. However, if the people want absolute or despotic rule, what then?.

Then they are blind enough to not see that the creation of a monarchy, despotism or fascist state means the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

[CountArach]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_03.htm#006):

An essential and inevitable defect, which will always rank monarchical below the republican government, is that in a republic the public voice hardly ever raises to the highest positions men who are not enlightened and capable, and such as to fill them with honour; while in monarchies those who rise to the top are most often merely petty blunderers, petty swindlers, and petty intriguers, whose petty talents cause them to get into the highest positions at Court, but, as soon as they have got there, serve only to make their ineptitude clear to the public. The people is far less often mistaken in its choice than the prince; and a man of real worth among the king's ministers is almost as rare as a fool at the head of a republican government. Thus, when, by some fortunate chance, one of these born governors takes the helm of State in some monarchy that has been nearly overwhelmed by swarms of "gentlemanly" administrators, there is nothing but amazement at the resources he discovers, and his coming marks an era in his country's history.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Care to name any?

Modern heads of state in constitutional or absolute monarchies:

Hans-Adam II of Lichtenstein
Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg
Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
Jigme Singye Wangchuck
Queen Elizabeth II
Pope Benedict XVI (as Sovereign of Vatican City)
Bhumibol Adulyadej

Want me to go farther back? Alright, let's do that then.

Frederick II of Prussia
Gustav II Adolphus
Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanov
Friedrich Wilhelm (Brandenburg)


A monarchy is the absolute rule of a monarch, anything less of that is something else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

The Wikipedia page on "Monarchy" also defines a monarch as an individual who rules as head of state, but that the powers of the head of state can differ while the country remains a monarchy.


Then they are blind enough to not see that the creation of a monarchy, despotism or fascist state means the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

The creation of a monarchy, as you can see above, does not result in the loss of democratic vote or opinion.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Democracy is not simply rule by vote or rule by majority. Democracy is a package deal. It is inseperable from human rights, human dignity, individualism, equality and the rule of law. From these very concepts democracy sprung, democracy is unthinkable and meaningless without them. As I hold these to be inalieable rights, I must say no. Democracy can not vote itself out of existence no more than a person can sell himself into slavery. You can vote for whomever you want, but that liberty ends at stripping me of my rights as free and equal citizen. These rights can only be taken from my cold dead hands. :knight:

To be honest, it is utterly beyond me why anybody would want to relinquish his status as free citizen for that of subject of a queen, of a Kaiser with a pointy iron hat or of Bozo the Clown.

I do not recognise anybody above me, nor anybody below me. I have no patience for weaklings who dream of being ruled. If it is the existence as a slave you dream about, sell yourself into servitude in countries where that is legal.
And I have no tolerance for people who want to rule. If it is rule by force you dream about, don't be a weakling internet nerd. Live your dream. Join a street gang, or go to a zoo, and join in with the monkeys. In these environments the ape with the hardest fist rules over his lesser apes, if that's the sort of society that makes you happy.
Me, I am quite happy with the intricate interactions and infinite refinements of a society of free and equal persons. It makes me feel very human.

[Caius]

Well, looks like a good question, as allowing people to vote for undemocratical parties in the name of freedom, and freedom of speech, and you know the rest. But, some of those kind of parties will try to impose themselves in the power if they fail to win the elections. I was going to call an not real situation, but I'm not sure if its worthy enough if this post isn't even read.

[Incongruous]

I disagree that Democracy realises the good men and so lifts them up to highest positions. It raises the most daring, immoral and pragmatic of people. But at least they must contend with the free press and public fatigue at every election.

[CountArach]

I disagree that Democracy realises the good men and so lifts them up to highest positions. It raises the most daring, immoral and pragmatic of people. But at least they must contend with the free press and public fatigue at every election.
On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century :wink: . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

[Incongruous]

Democracy is not simply rule by vote or rule by majority. Democracy is a package deal. It is inseperable from human rights, human dignity, individualism, equality and the rule of law. From these very concepts democracy sprung, democracy is unthinkable and meaningless without them. As I hold these to be inalieable rights, I must say no. Democracy can not vote itself out of existence no more than a person can sell himself into slavery. You can vote for whomever you want, but that liberty ends at stripping me of my rights as free and equal citizen. These rights can only be taken from my cold dead hands. :knight:

To be honest, it is utterly beyond me why anybody would want to relinquish his status as free citizen for that of subject of a queen, of a Kaiser with a pointy iron hat or of Bozo the Clown.

I do not recognise anybody above me, nor anybody below me. I have no patience for weaklings who dream of being ruled. If it is the existence as a slave you dream about, sell yourself into servitude in countries where that is legal.
And I have no tolerance for people who want to rule. If it is rule by force you dream about, don't be a weakling internet nerd. Live your dream. Join a street gang, or go to a zoo, and join in with the monkeys. In these environments the ape with the hardest fist rules over his lesser apes, if that's the sort of society that makes you happy.
Me, I am quite happy with the intricate interactions and infinite refinements of a society of free and equal persons. It makes me feel very human.

Although rather abrasive and non-sporting (:clown:), this is a rather good summation of an all round good idea!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century :wink: . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

[CountArach]

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.
You still haven't explained why a Monarchy is better than an elected official, such as a President, doing the same job.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You still haven't explained why a Monarchy is better than an elected official, such as a President, doing the same job.

I don't recall yet having been asked, since the debate as to whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic is better is not the point of this thread at all. I did explain it in the last thread where I was asked, to my recollection.

[Incongruous]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century :wink: . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

Yes I agree that poor political philospher has been worn out by progression hasn't he?
Where has all that high-minded Rupublican vigour gone to?

[KarlXII]

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

Then you will have constitutional monarchy, right? Which is what Britain already has......

[CountArach]

I don't recall yet having been asked, since the debate as to whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic is better is not the point of this thread at all. I did explain it in the last thread where I was asked, to my recollection.
Alright then:

What makes a Monarch better than a Democratically elected President at fulfilling the rolls you wish it to?

Yes I agree that poor political philospher has been worn out by progression hasn't he?
Where has all that high-minded Rupublican vigour gone to?
I don't know, but I want it back :(

[Incongruous]

Hahah, CA I never realised you were such a romanticist! Do want a powdered wig also?

The fact is Evil Maniac, that a monarchy can never compete with Democracy in allowing men to judge what is best for themselves, and thus is under threat of politically minded men getting rid of it. As history has shown us.

You are not going to give us a Platonic view are you?

[CountArach]

Hahah, CA I never realised you were such a romanticist! Do want a powdered wig also?
I think these (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/William_Hogarth_004.jpg) are a good look :tongue:

I <3 Democracy

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Then you will have constitutional monarchy, right? Which is what Britain already has......

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.



What makes a Monarch better than a Democratically elected President at fulfilling the rolls you wish it to?

1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
3) Tourist money.
4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
5) A monarch is non-partisan.
6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

[CountArach]

1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
The President is more of a 'real' person than the Monarch then. This gives them a greater ability to empathise with people.

2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
I don't care about Tradition. Tradition means that the State is somewhat inflexible.

3) Tourist money.
When I went to America I took a tour of the White House. The queues were huge.

4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
What about when the Monarch dies?

5) A monarch is non-partisan.
Alright, this one is a fair point. I'm sure examples of very partisan Monarchs could be found.

6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.
I don't understand this one, could you elaborate? If you mean that a Monarchy is likely to lead to more respect between nations, look at what happened at the close of the Victorian period - World War I...

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.
I am not going to put a price on my freedom.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.
We aren't whining about the Constitutional Monarchy, we are whining about the Monarchy part of it. You are not electing the highest official in your Government, which by definition makes it undemocratic.

[KarlXII]

1) And what if the monarch is incompetent?
2) And? Does a sense of tradition make him a better ruler?
3) Come on, we're talking about administrating a nation, not tourism.
4) And if that rock is the laughing stock or most hated, it will not change until death, while a President is always recycled based off what the people want, not what a few think is good for them.
5) Hahaha, not even close.
6) Explain how a king is more diplomatically able then a President.


Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.

Then you should have no problem with many European countries current administrations.

I don't understand why you would like to have a government where one person can take away your rights in the blink of an eye.

[Incongruous]

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.



1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
3) Tourist money.
4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
5) A monarch is non-partisan.
6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

1) A politician has been learning since birth about how society works. He has a a good understanding of his nation.
2) An elected leader brings a sense of social inclusion and cohesion with him or her.
3)Tourist money "You know I really like Paris but I've always felt it lacks a Royal Family"
4) There is a solid oak hat represents your country, and grows with time. Look at France.
5) Bopa doubts Monarchs can be non-partisan in a modern world, full of smart and wealthy men. Bopa can get rid of his lected leader.
6)Bopa does not udrstand this point, Bopa confused.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_03.htm#006):

Rousseau is never appropriate to quote unless you are trying to prove that he was insane.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The President is more of a 'real' person than the Monarch then. This gives them a greater ability to empathise with people.

That is untrue and you know it.


I don't care about Tradition. Tradition means that the State is somewhat inflexible.

Not necessarily. Tradition is the preservation of what gives your country identity.


When I went to America I took a tour of the White House. The queues were huge.

Perhaps. But you must admit that in the United Kingdom, for example, a monarch seems to hold a certain something that a President could not. The people flock to the pomp and ceremony of a monarch.


What about when the Monarch dies?

You get a new solid rock to represent your country. Laws of succession can differ - you do not need to pass the throne to the firstborn son, but instead it can go to the most competent child.


I don't understand this one, could you elaborate? If you mean that a Monarchy is likely to lead to more respect between nations, look at what happened at the close of the Victorian period - World War I...


For one thing, one of the main aggressors in the First World War was France - a republic. Secondly, when it comes to monarchies, we must look to the future, not the past. Anyone who wants a return to the WWI status quo is a fool - a modern monarchy can be and is something much different. Thirdly, monarchy was one of the most common forms of government of the time, so the likelihood that a monarchy would start a war was much higher than it is now.


I am not going to put a price on my freedom.

It does not, on a practical basis, make you any more or less free.


You are not electing the highest official in your Government, which by definition makes it undemocratic.

Incorrect. For one thing, we have many different types of democracy. Secondly, the citizens still have a voice through their elected representatives, who control the actual balance of power in the country, making it democratic.


I don't understand why you would like to have a government where one person can take away your rights in the blink of an eye.

Because they can't. I'm not talking about an absolute monarchy or anything even close to that - I'm talking about a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has a little more power, and where checks and balances exist to both the Parliament and the monarch in the form of each other and a constitution.

[Incongruous]

I'm sorry, but how have you proven that such a monarchy is any better than the lot we have now?

It seems worse because we cannot get rid of him if we want. What happens when the royal line dies out?
If he cannot rule by his will then what is the point of him?

Checks and balances? haha go tell that to the people of Diego Garcia!
Sounds like bolloks to me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sorry, but how have you proven that such a monarchy is any better than the lot we have now?

I've given you opinions, ideals, something that is possible. My system, which I have previously laid out in detail for someone (which may have been you), is not perfect, but is also not tested. And how can we find the ideal form of government if we do not try things?

[LittleGrizzly]

I was basically imagining something like UK monarchy but what powers would they have ?

Our queen signs our laws in and announces the new goverment, but these powers are little more than ceremonial, only in extreme circumstances could the UK monarchy do that (something like refusing new racist laws if the BNP got elected) so would thier powers be ceremonial ? or real ?

if ceremonial then it is somewhat similar to the UK now, which is fine i guess but there is no real need for the monarchy

if real then my problems have been stated by others...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

would thier powers be ceremonial ? or real ?

Real, but limited. The libertarian streak in me does not like an overly powerful government, monarchial or otherwise.

[CountArach]

Rousseau is never appropriate to quote unless you are trying to prove that he was insane.
Rousseau is always appropriate to quote.

[Incongruous]

Yes I do remember your treatise on constitutional monarchy, it was rather well put, but it is flawed fundamentally. If you cannot prove to us in abstract why it is better than Democracy, what is the point?
It sounds very nice and all, but Democracy to most sounds even better, I know you rage against the flaws of Democracy such as a poorly informed public. Perhaps the answer to this is not in monarchy but a more refined Democracy? Why not put your impressive skills in the field of political science to that task?

[JR-]

In a Democracy, the existence of a political party -- provided they are not actively breaking the law or calling on/encouraging others to do so -- should never be curtailed. Freedom of political expression must be extended to the loons and idiots so as to preserve the full range of freedom of expression.



agreed.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As much as I would rather the British monarchy did not get any more powers (Charles and Camilla ain't tellin' me what to do!), I think if we are being honest democracy in the UK is a farce. We have a parliament of career politicians, all major parties are so similar we may as well be a one party state, and the working-class in particular is so disillusioned with politics it is turning to fascists such as the BNP or nationalists in Scotland and Wales, or just not voting at all.

This is not the fault of the electorate. Scare-tactics are the order of the day, and in the recent Scottish Parliament elections I'm glad to say these backfired on Labour.

[Kralizec]

Rousseau is never appropriate to quote unless you are trying to prove that he was insane

Rousseau is always appropriate to quote.

I don't think that he was insane. I do think that he failed to oversee the consequenses of his own imaginary constructs, as they lent inspiration to some of the worst forms of tyranny in Europe.

Rousseau didn't seek to curtail absolute power, merely to change the one who yielded it. The "common will" dictates everything.
To be fair, he did think very lowly of elections and thought that the only true democracy was what we'd call direct democracy. He remarked that the English people were free at the moment of casting their ballot, but reverted back to slavery after the vote was over.

Politicians who use Roussau's philosophy convieniently ingnore the latter and proceed to excercise broad-sweeping power in the name of the common will. Something to keep in mind.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes I do remember your treatise on constitutional monarchy, it was rather well put, but it is flawed fundamentally. If you cannot prove to us in abstract why it is better than Democracy, what is the point?

I had given numerous opinions on why I thought it was better than democracy, which is all I can do. You don't really know exactly what's going to happen until something has been tested. That's one of the reasons I'm doing my best to watch Bhutan - it's eventually going to be somewhere close to what I theorized, a balance.


Perhaps the answer to this is not in monarchy but a more refined Democracy? Why not put your impressive skills in the field of political science to that task?

Perhaps that this the answer. Perhaps we have many different answers. Perhaps there is no ideal answer, and what works depends on the state in question.

[Viking]

I had given numerous opinions on why I thought it was better than democracy, which is all I can do. You don't really know exactly what's going to happen until something has been tested. That's one of the reasons I'm doing my best to watch Bhutan - it's eventually going to be somewhere close to what I theorized, a balance.



Perhaps that this the answer. Perhaps we have many different answers. Perhaps there is no ideal answer, and what works depends on the state in question.

There is no logical reason as of why one would want to add a king in the equation; if you want someone that knows what he's doing, pick the one with the best grades on the hypothetical Head of State School, and not some random fellow who is a potential idiot.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There is no logical reason as of why one would want to add a king in the equation; if you want someone that knows what he's doing, pick the one with the best grades on the hypothetical Head of State School, and not some random fellow who is a potential idiot.

We seem to be very good at picking Presidents who are idiots (oh, that's right, we don't pick them anyways), or at least bad, so why would it make a difference which idiot is in power? It doesn't, but it does give stability and an individual who is trained to keep away from the partisan bickering of ordinary politics.

[Viking]

We seem to be very good at picking Presidents who are idiots (oh, that's right, we don't pick them anyways), or at least bad, so why would it make a difference which idiot is in power? It doesn't, but it does give stability and an individual who is trained to keep away from the partisan bickering of ordinary politics.

You have no guarantee that the king is even going to be interested in politics, whereas a politician necessarily is; or whether he in fact will keep the country stable; he could very well have some revolutionary thoughts himself.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You have no guarantee that the king is even going to be interested in politics

If he does not show any kind of interest in administration or diplomacy, he can refuse to inherit the throne. I'm still talking about a constitutional monarchy here.


or whether he in fact will keep the country stable; he could very well have some revolutionary thoughts himself.

He could - and that is the beauty of monarchism. Anyone can be a monarchist, whether they are on the left or right of the political spectrum. Likewise, the king can have a specific political idealogy. However, that is why we have a parliament. They can balance each other.

[Viking]

If he does not show any kind of interest in administration or diplomacy, he can refuse to inherit the throne. I'm still talking about a constitutional monarchy here.

But he wouldn't have to. He could take on his role with less knowledge than the lower end spectrum of politicians.



He could - and that is the beauty of monarchism. Anyone can be a monarchist, whether they are on the left or right of the political spectrum. Likewise, the king can have a specific political idealogy. However, that is why we have a parliament. They can balance each other.

But the stability is gone; it'd be no more stable than the average Western democracy. In addition to that, the parliament could of course also change.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You have no guarantee that the king is even going to be interested in politics, whereas a politician necessarily

Most politicians seem more interested in their careers or getting a place in the history books. Although I'm not sure why royalty would be any better.

[woad&fangs]

EMFM, by any chance could you direct me to a post where you've explained your Monarchist system? I know you went into detail about it at one point but I can no longer remember which thread it was in.

Danke:balloon3:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Viking, I haven't forgotten your post, don't worry. ~;)


Most politicians seem more interested in their careers or getting a place in the history books. Although I'm not sure why royalty would be any better.

Royalty, at least in theory, doesn't need to worry about the blatant careerism.


EMFM, by any chance could you direct me to a post where you've explained your Monarchist system? I know you went into detail about it at one point but I can no longer remember which thread it was in.

Danke:balloon3:

I, unfortuntately, can't remember the thread either, but I'll take a look. If I can't find it, I'll type it out again in this thread. ~:)

[KarlXII]

We seem to be very good at picking Presidents who are idiots (oh, that's right, we don't pick them anyways), or at least bad, so why would it make a difference which idiot is in power? It doesn't, but it does give stability and an individual who is trained to keep away from the partisan bickering of ordinary politics.

Let's see. An idiot President who can be impeached if the legislative body chooses, or an idiot monarch who still has power but who's power is only tooken by death.

You think a monarch is bi-partisan when it comes to choosing? I don't think any head of state, King, President, Prime Minister, Fueher, is truly bi-partisan.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's see. An idiot President who can be impeached if the legislative body chooses, or an idiot monarch who still has power but who's power is only tooken by death.

The populace continually elects idiot Presidents when it has the chance to elect a President at all. In my country, we don't elect the President anyways. If a monarch is truly an idiot or doing bad things for his country, first of all we have two chambers of Parliament to balance him out, and secondly, if the monarch was completely terrible, he can pass on the throne to his successor. There is no reason mechanisms cannot be in place forcing the monarch to do this - they can even be included in the constitution.


You think a monarch is bi-partisan when it comes to choosing? I don't think any head of state, King, President, Prime Minister, Fueher, is truly bi-partisan.

I'll put it to you this way. Firstly, anyone can become a monarchist. Therefore, the monarch can agree with any political party. Secondly, the monarch can be backed by a political party, but the monarch does not have back that party. Thirdly, if the anti-monarchists gain enough power, the monarch cannot stop them.

In other words, I believe that a monarch is much more non-partisan than a President. A President can support the goals of his party. A monarch can support social democratic goals at the same time as supporting conservative goals - and because he has no electorate to appeal to, they won't vote him out for betraying the party or his idealogy, because he simply doesn't have one (at least not in public).

[LittleGrizzly]

I'll put it to you this way. Firstly, anyone can become a monarchist. Therefore, the monarch can agree with any political party. Secondly, the monarch can be backed by a political party, but the monarch does not have back that party. Thirdly, if the anti-monarchists gain enough power, the monarch cannot stop them.

In other words, I believe that a monarch is much more non-partisan than a President. A President can support the goals of his party. A monarch can support social democratic goals at the same time as supporting conservative goals - and because he has no electorate to appeal to, they won't vote him out for betraying the party or his idealogy, because he simply doesn't have one (at least not in public).

I believe monarch's tend to be less partisan than politicians, but by creating a means by which a monarch can be removed you created the need for the monarch to play to public opinion, which in my mind removes the best thing about a monarchy.

I think instead of a monarchy maybe a council of intelligent people would be a better tool, you could have leaders n business the sciences ect. they could serve something like a 5 or 10 year term and after that they are simply replaced, unfortunatly then you get down to specifics of who picks the candidiates and it would have to be members of parliement, and in the end party loyaltys would take over and it would turn into a glorified extension of parliment..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I believe monarch's tend to be less partisan than politicians, but by creating a means by which a monarch can be removed you created the need for the monarch to play to public opinion, which in my mind removes the best thing about a monarchy.

Well, there has to be a means that the public can use to remove the monarchy short of violent bloodshed. Therefore, I think that the monarch should be protected under the constitution.