Thoughts on monarchy?

[blah the Prussian]

I can't be the only member here who is a monarchist, can I? Ive wanted to make a topic about this for a long time. I just find monarchy to be as a system better than presidential republicanism. The entire notion of true democracy was relatively recent; Monarchy worked as a system for the entire history of humanity up until around the American revolution and the enlightenment. Thats pretty much a preface to my thoughts, but yeah, feel free to try to rip my opinions to shreds.

[Blue Druid]

Well, both systems have their pros and cons. Even though monarchy has been a stable form of government for hundreds of years, the notion of a "democratic" republic is more favoured around the world because "the people rule". It's not like monarchies can't be democratic though. In fact Norway, a monarchy, is considered the most democratic country in the world. Any type of government will work as long as corruption is not present, and the people in power genuinely care about the lower classes. However, corruption is inevitable and 90% of the time, the politicians do not care for the well-being of the people, and therefore it is a matter of which type of government can limit the influence of corruption the most, which in my humble opinion is why presidential republics and constitutional monarchies are preferred, as the president or king does not do as he pleases, but has to consult and convince a council of politically educated people.

[Original Alear]

I'm not a democracy fanatic. I don't think that it's the only possible system, or the only right one. But I don't think that nominal power being passed down through a family is a particularly good way of determining who will rule. I suppose one possible advantage is that having some idea of who will rule as early as them being born means that that person can be groomed for leadership very early on.

I am just shooting the breeze here, but based on reading america's declaration of independence, I always got the feeling that they weren't trying to found a democracy in particular at that point, but were more concerned with overthrowing the established order. I guess that's true of many revolutions. The idea of democratic republic in particular seems to have come a bit later.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Severian

[blah the Prussian]

I'm not a democracy fanatic. I don't think that it's the only possible system, or the only right one. But I don't think that nominal power being passed down through a family is a particularly good way of determining who will rule. I suppose one possible advantage is that having some idea of who will rule as early as them being born means that that person can be groomed for leadership very early on.

I am just shooting the breeze here, but based on reading america's declaration of independence, I always got the feeling that they weren't trying to found a democracy in particular at that point, but were more concerned with overthrowing the established order. I guess that's true of many revolutions. The idea of democratic republic in particular seems to have come a bit later.

Hereditary rule is, in my opinion, both the best and most stable way of determining a successor. A popularity contest of who can appeal to the lowest common denominator most effectively seems to me to be a terrible way to determine who will rule. Dictatorships have their advantages, I suppose, but ht issue there is that whenever the dictator dies, there is a power struggle, unlike in a monarchy where the eldest chid of the monarch will succeed. Your description of the Declaration of independence seems to me to be correct; may I merely add that it represents a heinous act of treason against the crown?

Well, both systems have their pros and cons. Even though monarchy has been a stable form of government for hundreds of years, the notion of a "democratic" republic is more favoured around the world because "the people rule". It's not like monarchies can't be democratic though. In fact Norway, a monarchy, is considered the most democratic country in the world. Any type of government will work as long as corruption is not present, and the people in power genuinely care about the lower classes. However, corruption is inevitable and 90% of the time, the politicians do not care for the well-being of the people, and therefore it is a matter of which type of government can limit the influence of corruption the most, which in my humble opinion is why presidential republics and constitutional monarchies are preferred, as the president or king does not do as he pleases, but has to consult and convince a council of politically educated people.

First off, let me say I do not support absolutism; I support the Prussian model for constitutionalism, where the monarch holds a great deal of power, but they do not rule with absolute power. Now, in general I would disagree with you about one thing: it is not usually the monarch or President who is corrupt, but the politicians. However, there is one key issue with combatting corruption in a Presidential Republic, and that is that the President owes their power to someone, namely the politicians and businessmen who supported them. Once the President gets in to power, they have to let those who supported them get away with whatever they want, lest they lose what power they have been given. This is a problem in all forms of government except monarchy; even Hitler owed his position to his Nazi cronies. Only a monarch is free to act completely in the interests of the state without worrying about losing power.

[Snowy_One]

Ah. Monarchy. One of the most revered, and also hated, forms of government in all history. My thoughts on it are simple. It's a romantic notion and has shown itself to be remarkably effective on the whole; especially with a few checks and balances to ensure that the king is not a despot but is actually held accountable to the people. However said king is selected entirely based upon his parentage and in which order he was born which can easily lead to a tyrant becoming king just because he was born a year earlier. There is no denying that it works and, likewise, that it has many upsides. A ruler for life with such power generally guarantees at least a degree of order after all. However...

Well...

I'm actually not sure. While I could argue that it's bad because you can have a poor leader the same is true of any other form of government. Monarchies are responsible for many things such as outlawing slavery, the formation of the Magna Carta, and so-forth and that's just with England. Not to mention that they can put their foot down to stop any stupid arguments and it's hard to see the online world as it is and not wish for some power to just put their foot down and declare one side the winner. Still, what is to separate a monarchy from a family despotism?

[Original Alear]

Your description of the Declaration of independence seems to me to be correct; may I merely add that it represents a heinous act of treason against the crown?

Too late now. I'm rather peaceful, or so I like to think, so I probably wouldn't have supported the revolution if I was suddenly transplanted back at that time. But my problem with the revolutionary war is pretty much that people died in it. I really don't have loyalty to the british crown, so why would I care if there was treason against it? I don't think that simply ruling means that your rule should be inviolable. That being said, I suspect you have a more detailed argument of why this particular act of treason was heinous.

[MacLovin]

I think an Aristocracy would work better than Monarchy/Democracy.

[Achelexus]

Funny thing is that the closest thing to a monarchy we have in today's world would be North Korea's communist regime, horseshoe much?

[blah the Prussian]

Funny thing is that the closest thing to a monarchy we have in today's world would be North Korea's communist regime, horseshoe much?

No, the closest thing we have to a monarchy in today's world would be the UK, Sweden, Jordan, Japan, the Netherlands, to name a few.

I think an Aristocracy would work better than Monarchy/Democracy.

Allow me to vehemently disagree with this statement. An aristocratic oligarchy would have all the indecision of a democracy combined with all the potential tyranny of an autocracy. It is the worst form of government in terms of how good it is for a nation, for sure.

Ah. Monarchy. One of the most revered, and also hated, forms of government in all history. My thoughts on it are simple. It's a romantic notion and has shown itself to be remarkably effective on the whole; especially with a few checks and balances to ensure that the king is not a despot but is actually held accountable to the people. However said king is selected entirely based upon his parentage and in which order he was born which can easily lead to a tyrant becoming king just because he was born a year earlier. There is no denying that it works and, likewise, that it has many upsides. A ruler for life with such power generally guarantees at least a degree of order after all. However...

Well...

I'm actually not sure. While I could argue that it's bad because you can have a poor leader the same is true of any other form of government. Monarchies are responsible for many things such as outlawing slavery, the formation of the Magna Carta, and so-forth and that's just with England. Not to mention that they can put their foot down to stop any stupid arguments and it's hard to see the online world as it is and not wish for some power to just put their foot down and declare one side the winner. Still, what is to separate a monarchy from a family despotism?

I pretty much agree with this, specifically the second part, as that is I assume the part you want people to think of as your conclusion. Simply put, the difference between a monarchy and a family despotism is that the family came to power usually due to the support of certain elements, be it the military for the Gaddafis or Stalinist Russia and Maoist China for the Kims. Due to this, they have to put the interests of this faction over the interests of their nation, or risk losing their power. Also, most monarchies today are also democracies; not so with family despotisms.

[Blue Druid]

First off, let me say I do not support absolutism; I support the Prussian model for constitutionalism, where the monarch holds a great deal of power, but they do not rule with absolute power. Now, in general I would disagree with you about one thing: it is not usually the monarch or President who is corrupt, but the politicians. However, there is one key issue with combatting corruption in a Presidential Republic, and that is that the President owes their power to someone, namely the politicians and businessmen who supported them. Once the President gets in to power, they have to let those who supported them get away with whatever they want, lest they lose what power they have been given. This is a problem in all forms of government except monarchy; even Hitler owed his position to his Nazi cronies. Only a monarch is free to act completely in the interests of the state without worrying about losing power.

I didn't mean to imply that you were an absolutist, and yes, the Prussian model is a much better than an absolute monarchy. I agree with you that politicians are mainly the ones who are corrupt, but I never said that the king is always corrupt and does what he wants, just that republics are presented as such a perfect type of government for the reason that they don't allow him to; I didn't say that I agree with that view.

[blah the Prussian]

I didn't mean to imply that you were an absolutist, and yes, the Prussian model is a much better than an absolute monarchy. I agree with you that politicians are mainly the ones who are corrupt, but I never said that the king is always corrupt and does what he wants, just that republics are presented as such a perfect type of government for the reason that they don't allow him to; I didn't say that I agree with that view.

Oh, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Blue Druid]

Oh, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No problem man.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Blue Druid

[blah the Prussian]

Incidentally, for some restoration stats, 1/5 Germans support a restoration, and a whopping 70 percent of Georgians support a restoration. I support restoration for most exiled monarchies across the world, and support all existing monarchies except Saudi Arabia.

[Rapier]

I can't be the only member here who is a monarchist, can I? Ive wanted to make a topic about this for a long time. I just find monarchy to be as a system better than presidential republicanism. The entire notion of true democracy was relatively recent; Monarchy worked as a system for the entire history of humanity up until around the American revolution and the enlightenment.

I don't think these arguments are good, because they appeal to tradition. Basically, because monarchy has worked as a system for the entire history of humanity, we should go back to a monarchy system. This doesn't tell anything about republicanism or any other option being worse or better than monarchies. Also, feudalism and tribalism have worked as a system for the entire history of humanity, yet I doubt anyone wants to return to one of these systems.

I don't have a clear opinion about this matter. There are a couple of pros and cons concerning republicanism and monarchism that I can't judge whichever is the best one.

For monarchy, the good thing is that the ruler will be better educated than any other government leader most of the time. In a republican system, there are no restrictions to electing a leader based on education, whereas in a monarchy, we at least know the heir is going to get the best education the crown can provide to him. Even if he doesn't turn out to be a genius, at least he'll know better than the average joe with populism and a honey tongue (I am very annoyed with the amount of morrons that are democratically elected, both Brazil's presidents and Nicolas Maduro in particular. I think leaders should have at least a basic knowledge of political science and economy in order to be elected, but people will claim I'm being too elitist and anti-democratic, so whatever). I infer from this that a monarchical ruler has better chances of being a better ruler than a republican one.

But a monarchy needs absolute power to be worth switching to, in my opinion. If it has more power than the people, it is tyranny, and the King has potential to be more harmful to the people than democratically elected leaders can be (save for dictators). If it has less power than the people, for example, if their powers are lowered by a Constitution that is written by the representants of the people, then the monarchy may as well not exist (in UK's cases, as well as other countries' cases, I know it is much more difficult than that, so what I'm saying doesn't apply to them). The way I see, a monarchy can either be harmful or redundant.

Maybe a parliamentarist monarchy where the crown and the Senate have an equal amount of powers and need to comply with each other could work. I'm not sure.

Sometimes I wish Brazil could return to being a monarchy. The current heir seems to be more capable and intelligent than most president candidates so far.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Rapier

[The Obsidian]

Incidentally, for some restoration stats, 1/5 Germans support a restoration, and a whopping 70 percent of Georgians support a restoration. I support restoration for most exiled monarchies across the world, and support all existing monarchies except Saudi Arabia.

May I see your sources, please? I'm German, and I can assure you that there is no serious public debate over this issue, nor has this subject ever been brought up in current political debates or important media outlets, as most people rightfully regard those few monarchists there are as nutcases who haven't had enough after the whole Wilhelm II. debacle.

[blah the Prussian]

@Rapier: That "except for dictators" is a pretty big except, considering that the likes of Hitler were democratically elected. But yeah, jackasses like Caligula being in power is a risk. There also is a middle ground between absolutism and a crowned republic, for example Imperial Germany and Meiji Japan, both of which had considerable success before putting the wrong people in power (both military dictatorships with the Emperor as a figurehead). And yeah, Brazil had a pretty good run as a monarchy. Pedro II was probably the perfect example of an almost completely benevolent ruler.

May I see your sources, please? I'm German, and I can assure you that there is no serious public debate over this issue, nor has this subject ever been brought up in current political debates or important media outlets, as most people rightfully regard those few monarchists there are as nutcases who haven't had enough after the whole Wilhelm II. debacle.

Here you go for Germany, I assume you don't particularly care about Georgia.

http://www.thelocal.de/20130425/49371

I will say, however, that it is pretty hilarious how the article treats a guy thinking it would be pretty rad, actually, if he was made Kaiser of Germany as news.

Now, you did make an argument regarding Wilhelm II that kind of bothers me for how terrible it is. Just because there are a few bad apples, doesn't mean the entire system is broken. That would be like if a monarchist said "democracy is bad because Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson (a whole other rant) were terrible Presidents. In addition, I would challenge the claim that Wilhelm II was that terrible. Obviously his big mistake was WWI, but the Reichstag supported the war as well. So did pretty much every leader of a nation who went to war. You don't hear David Lloyd George being talked about as an idiot, do you? If Germany won the war (it's defeat was not Wilhelm's fault) then Wilhelm II would be a national hero. I'm sorry if I come off as patronizing saying this to a German, but it's just my opinion about the man.

Edited June 27, 2015 by blah2127

[The Obsidian]

Here you go for Germany, I assume you don't particularly care about Georgia.

http://www.thelocal.de/20130425/49371

I will say, however, that it is pretty hilarious how the article treats a guy thinking it would be pretty rad, actually, if he was made Kaiser of Germany as news.

Now, you did make an argument regarding Wilhelm II that kind of bothers me for how terrible it is. Just because there are a few bad apples, doesn't mean the entire system is broken. That would be like if a monarchist said "democracy is bad because Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson (a whole other rant) were terrible Presidents. In addition, I would challenge the claim that Wilhelm II was that terrible. Obviously his big mistake was WWI, but the Reichstag supported the war as well. So did pretty much every leader of a nation who went to war. You don't hear David Lloyd George being talked about as an idiot, do you? If Germany won the war (it's defeat was not Wilhelm's fault) then Wilhelm II would be a national hero. I'm sorry if I come off as patronizing saying this to a German, but it's just my opinion about the man.

Huh, interesting. A quick google search tells me that none of the major newspapers reported on it, and this was certainly new to me!

Be that as it may, you have to keep in mind that even though 19 percent answered favorably in a single poll, they do not represent an organized political force, and a restoration of a monarchy in Germany seems, mildly put, highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. Especially the Prussian monarchy is commonly associated with nationalism, militarism, and authorianism - so much that a good majority of German historians see it as one of major factor in our nation's Sonderweg, it's feeble democratic development until the middle of the 20th century that has contributed to the rise of Nazism.

And, by the way, Wilhelm II's antics (Daily Telegraph Affair and all that jazz, you're probably familiar with it) were widely seen as an embarassment in Germany way before the first World War, and the Prussian monarchy in particular with its Dreiklassenwahlrecht (a system of limited suffrage based on income) was rather discredited, anyway. (And even if Germany had won the war - given the Reich's ridiculously imperialist war aims, he would most likely be seen as the representative of a criminal, inhumane system of national exploitation and oppression by the majority of people in today's world.) It's no wonder that during the war, Hindenburg rather than the Kaiser was played up as a symbol of national identification, and that after November 1918, even a constitutional monarchy after the British model was unacceptable to the populace.

Now, this represents the majority view in Germany on this subject, regardless of my personal feelings, and it's unlikely to change anytime soon. Plus, after our experiences with two dictatorships in the 20th century, most Germans clearly prefer living in a parliamentary, republican democracy without such trappings of a personal rule, even in a decorative fashion.

And that's all I can say about this subject.

PS. No, I didn't see your comment as patronizing, don't worry about it. :)

[blah the Prussian]

I really can't see how the Prussian system inspired Naziism. Naziism was never reactionary. It was right wing, to be sure, but there is a difference. The Nazis were always contemptuous of the nobility, particularly the Prussian Junkers. It would be a mistake to compare any period in Prussian history to the system of borderline deification the Nazis had in place with Hitler. Imperial Germany had some of the best social justice in Europe (admittedly mostly due to the SPD and Bismarck) and was a haven of tolerance for Jews. I fail to see how that inspired the Nazis social darwinistic worldview. Finally, the Nazis only really gained popularity after the Great Depression hit; context would thus suggest hat their popularity with the people was due to economic issues, and certainly not due to some sort of nostalgia for the Imperial age. Regarding Imperial German war goals, if I recall correctly they planned for a bunch of German aligned states to be set up in the east, to annex some of France, and to get some colonies, right? I fail to see how that was different from what the Entente imposed on Germany; the Germans lost their entire colonial empire, and lost some land to France. While we're on the topic of imperialism, lets talk about the Middle East. The UK and France carved up the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire, colonizing Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. They then divided the spoils with no regard whatsoever for ethnicity or religion. Originally they planned a complete partition of the Ottoman Empire, making the state completely disappear from the map. If that's not criminally imperialistic I don't know what is. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary suffered a similar fate as Russia, with Hungary in particular being economically devastated. So over all, I don't see how German war aims that might not have even been applied are any more imperialistic than what the Entente got away with. I will concede the point about the polls, however.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying Wilhelm was a good Kaiser, he just wasn't as bad as people make him out to be, for the reasons I listed.

Edited June 28, 2015 by blah2127

[Naughx]

I don't like the fact that my country uses another country's monarch.

[blah the Prussian]

The Commonwealth is a bit of a special case, considering everything. I like to think of it like Canada is in a personal union with the UK' Gus Elizabeth II is just as much queen of Canada as she is of Britain. Incidentally, there were plans when Canada first became a dominion to have one of Victorias sons as King, but the US threw a hissy fit about it.

[ClevelandSteve]

Monarchy would be great if every monarch was a good and decent person who cared about the rights and well-being of their people, but all it takes is for one deranged nutjob like Joffrey from Game of Thrones to take the throne and everything will go to shit. Democracy (at least the way things are done in America, where everything is pretty much decided by meaningless buzzwords and corporate donors) tends to weed out the best possible leaders (and even the decent ones get stopped from doing any real good by the awful people who won other elections like say, for Congress), but it also weeds out the worst possible leaders, too.

[blah the Prussian]

Monarchy would be great if every monarch was a good and decent person who cared about the rights and well-being of their people, but all it takes is for one deranged nutjob like Joffrey from Game of Thrones to take the throne and everything will go to shit. Democracy (at least the way things are done in America, where everything is pretty much decided by meaningless buzzwords and corporate donors) tends to weed out the best possible leaders (and even the decent ones get stopped from doing any real good by the awful people who won other elections like say, for Congress), but it also weeds out the worst possible leaders, too.

Firstly, the assumption that there will eventually be tyrants produced is faulty, as if the King is a decent judge of character then chances are they'll disinherit any potential sociopaths. The best possible leaders are astronomically more likely to be monarchs, due to them being far better educated than most others. I would also challenge the claim that democracy weeds out the worst possible leaders. For starters, the Nazi party came to power at least partly through democracy. Democracy also gave us such wonderful leaders as Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush in the US alone. Finally, Joffrey is probably a bad example as he is a. a fictional character and b. never had real power; if I recall correctly his mom was running the show.

[ClevelandSteve]

Firstly, the assumption that there will eventually be tyrants produced is faulty, as if the King is a decent judge of character then chances are they'll disinherit any potential sociopaths.

Parents in general tend to be blind to the sociopathy in their own children. That's true whether that parent is a king or a McDonald's frycook.

The best possible leaders are astronomically more likely to be monarchs, due to them being far better educated than most others.

Education makes you smarter, but it doesn't necessarily make you a decent person. For example, Karl Rove is very well-educated and intelligent, but he uses his intelligence to scheme and advance awful causes that benefit himself at the expense of 99% of the population. Since monarchs would also be very wealthy, it's possible that they might use their intelligence entirely for their own self-interest too.

I would also challenge the claim that democracy weeds out the worst possible leaders. For starters, the Nazi party came to power at least partly through democracy. Democracy also gave us such wonderful leaders as Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush in the US alone. Finally, Joffrey is probably a bad example as he is a. a fictional character and b. never had real power; if I recall correctly his mom was running the show.

Those are all good points (though, technically, Andrew Johnson only became president because Lincoln died. And Hoover gets a lot of blame for stuff that was really more Harding and Coolidge's fault. Though, since Harding and Coolidge each won an election on their own, too, that's not the best endorsement for democracy). And I will add probably the greatest example that democracy favors leaders who are better at speaking than actually doing good, Ronald Reagan, who is beloved by many to this day even though his economic policies were what directly lead to the economic collapse of 2008, along with a bunch of other terrible things he did. And I'll also agree that Joffrey isn't the best example, but there are plenty of real-life examples of monarchs who were/are downright awful sociopaths. Roman Emperor Caligula and Kim Jong Un (A monarch in all but name, since he inherited the "throne" of North Korea from his father and wields unlimited power) come to mind.

[blah the Prussian]

I'll agree with you about Caligula, but in all honesty Rome was more of a military dictatorship than a hereditary monarchy (at least before Byzantium) since the emperors would select their,heirs by adopting sons who weren't related by blood. With Kim, I wouldn't say that the person is necessarily the problem; I would argue that the system of North Korea itself means that Kim might believe his own propaganda. If anything North Korea is more of a theocracy than a monarchy, as no monarchy has ever had the level of worship for a leader exhibited in North Korea. Really, NKs system is so unique it might warrant a whole new classification, but that's not the point of this discussion, is it?

Parents in general tend to be blind to the sociopathy in their own children. That's true whether that parent is a king or a McDonald's frycook.

Fair enough.

Education makes you smarter, but it doesn't necessarily make you a decent person. For example, Karl Rove is very well-educated and intelligent, but he uses his intelligence to scheme and advance awful causes that benefit himself at the expense of 99% of the population. Since monarchs would also be very wealthy, it's possible that they might use their intelligence entirely for their own self-interest too.

First of all, I wasn't saying education makes you a better person, but in general it makes you more competent. That was all I was saying. It is equally likely for monarchs and democratically elected leaders to be evil. Secondly, this seems to be the biggest point of disagreement between us. I don't see how being extremely wealthy makes you more likely to act in your own self interest. On the contrary, if one is born with everything, that makes them less likely to have personal ambition, as they will probably be content with what they have, in contrast to the nouveau rich, whose ambitions will likely never be sates. All of this is just conjecture of course, but it seems logical to me.

[Fly or Die]

I'll agree with you about Caligula, but in all honesty Rome was more of a military dictatorship than a hereditary monarchy (at least before Byzantium) since the emperors would select their,heirs by adopting sons who weren't related by blood.

I'm not entirely against the idea of political absolutism (including monarchy), but I think the biggest problem with it historically has been that bad kings invariably turn up because -- as pointed out -- parents tend to not disinherit their unsuitable children for various reasons.

Look at the Five Good Emperors of Rome. All were unrelated to their predecessor, and picked by ability. Surely it isn't a coincidence that as soon as we got back to family rule the time of the "Five Good Emperors" ended?

If you pass monarchy down to the children, it seems almost obvious to me you'll hit one who is woefully incompetent. In which case, you might as well stick with democracy, which, while inefficient, is at least pretty consistent.