The Right of Democracy

[CountArach]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here:

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.

[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 . 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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . 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.

[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 :(

[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......

[Incongruous]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . 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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rousseau seems like the right guy to quote here:

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

[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?

[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.

[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.