The Right of Democracy

[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

[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

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.