Thoughts on monarchy?

[blah the Prussian]

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.

The issue with this is that while this did turn out optimal rulers for a time, it also ended up as the reason for Rome's fall. The problem with this kind of succession is that there was no legal precedent whatsoever for who would become the next emperor. That basically made any general with enough support feel free to proclaim himself Augustus whenever there was a new Emperor. This was taken to ridiculous extremes in the later days, when the Empire was in a near constant state of civil war, and was the reason for the fall of Rome. Now, as for democracy, I fail to see how there won't be incompetent Presidents. Look at the Johnson administration in America, or pretty much any Mexican President ever except Juarez. The difference is that a king or queen always has access to e best education in the nation, and so is more likely to be competent that whoever gets enough corporations to endorse them. If anything, hereditary rule is most consistent. Finally, the big advantage to hereditary rule is that the monarch doesn't owe their power to anyone. A common problem in Republics is that the President has to cater to whoever supported them, or risk losing their power. This is actually true of all types of government other than monarchy. Monarchs, however, can concentrate solely on what is best for the nation.

[Rapier]

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.

This is why I thought about a parliamentarist system where the crown's powers are divided with the elected representants of the people. That way, even if someone like Joffrey (yes, I'm going with the most absurd possible theory) reaches the throne, they will have to cope with the parliament leader. On another approach, a parliament leader like Darth Sidious would be forced to cope with the crown. Only if both are corrupt and coordenated will it suck entirely.

An educated ruler is better than an uneducated ruler, no matter if said ruler is good or bad. An educated bad ruler is better than an uneducated bad ruler, because the former at least knows how to keep the gears moving. Also, an uneducated "good" ruler is questionable in politics, because they will be helpless in the intricate web of political alliances, money loans, promises that might be impossible, being in good terms with the Legislative etc. An uneducated but good ruler might as well be useless, even if they're slightly better than an educated bad ruler. I prefer doing a coin toss for an educated good/bad ruler, the rest is plain useless.

@blah

Yeah, Pedro II was a nice ruler. His "parliamentarist" government could go terribly wrong in the hands of the wrong ruler, though, because it gave the monarch enough power to redo the parliament should the monarch will it, even if the monarch had no say in parliamentary decisions. I wouldn't trust so much power in the hands of anyone else but him and his daughter (the one who effectively abolished slavery). The positivist military dethroned him soon after and turned Brazil into a hellhole of rich landlords commanding people to vote them for decades, which is a huge shame, but that's another story.

[blah the Prussian]

But, if both the King and PM are corrupt, then the fault partly rests with the people for electing the PM in the first place. Regarding Brazil, I didn't know that Isabel was the one who abolished slavery. Interesting. In any case,, wasn't Brazil's system basically the norm in all monarchies at that point, though? Given time, Brazil would probably have reformed its monarchy, like the rest of the world did. Of course, this is Serenes Forest serious discussion, not Alternate History.com, so this is all merely speculation, but it seems likely.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

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

This

And the fact that the head of state is not Canadian.

For the most part, I personally do not appreciate the idea of monarchism (being treated as a subject rather than a citizen).

[blah the Prussian]

This

And the fact that the head of state is not Canadian.

For the most part, I personally do not appreciate the idea of monarchism (being treated as a subject rather than a citizen).

Name one way in which you have been treated as a subject rather than a citizen that has actually had an affect on your life. In a modern monarchy, be it absolute and constitutional, there is no difference between a subject and a citizen.

[Parrhesia]

A terrible and outdated system, and the British one can fuck right off these shores.

[blah the Prussian]

A terrible and outdated system, and the British one can fuck right off these shores.

Look, I respect you, so could you please tell me why so we can have a nice little debate? Also, if something being old isn't a reason for it being good it shouldn't be a reason for it to be bad.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

When it comes to the legalities on sovereignty, I consider citizens as more affiliated with the states. Existentially is the fact that my Head of State is non-Canadian goes against my understanding of a sovereign state but thats just me.

On a sidenote, I personally find that having a monarchy can be rather costly but thats another topic for another day.

[blah the Prussian]

Then again, what defines a nation state? Canada itself is a nation made of many ethnicities, descended from immigrants, plus the Quebecois, so I don't see what's so terrible about having a non Canadian head of state who is powerless if it ties Canada to the Commonwealth with all the benefits that go with that. Also, Obama costs more than Elizabeth II.

Edited July 1, 2015 by blah2127

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

Okay you got me, it might not be as terrible but at the same time I just don't see the reason to embrace Elizabeth II as my Head of State. I suppose the only logic to consider this is of historical/cultural significance of my country's history.

[blah the Prussian]

Okay you got me, it might not be as terrible but at the same time I just don't see the reason to embrace Elizabeth II as my Head of State. I suppose the only logic to consider this is of historical/cultural significance of my country's history.

Well, let me make like Phoenix Wright and turn this on its head and ask you why you shouldn't embrace Elizabeth II as a powerless head of state?

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

In all honesty, I personally believe that she does not represent my interest as a Canadian and is unnecessary for my country's future.

[Rapier]

In all honesty, I personally believe that she does not represent my interest as a Canadian and is unnecessary for my country's future.

Aren't countries inside the Commonwealth benefitted for being inside that group? I imagine it's like a Trade Bloc.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Rapier

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

India is part of the Commonwealth as well...sorry but I don't see how this is relevant with regards to the monarchy whatsoever...

Edited July 2, 2015 by Formerly Colm

[Phoenix Wright]

i wouldn't be opposed to renaming the presidency to an emperor/king (and female equivalent).

i am not in favor of taking away the voices of the people, even if there is a perceived increase in "efficiency" (whatever that could possibly mean in this context). not to mention hereditary rule is somewhat of a random chance when determining the effectiveness of the monarch.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

i am not in favor of taking away the voices of the people, even if there is a perceived increase in "efficiency" (whatever that could possibly mean in this context). not to mention hereditary rule is somewhat of a random chance when determining the effectiveness of the monarch.

Neither am I. The monarchy I support would be constitutional, although the monarch would still have power.

i wouldn't be opposed to renaming the presidency to an emperor/king (and female equivalent).

Wait, so an elective monarchy? I don't know about that, because both examples of that (HRE and Poland-Lithuania) failed horribly. If there would be a monarchy in America, the throne should be given to a member of the a House of Windsor, the legitimate occupants.

[Zasplach]

Some places could use the stabilizing effects of a constitutional monarchy as seen in countries like Great Britain with Queen Elizabeth II, but some places will never have a monarch, the United States being one of them. I believe my country would except any form of government before monarchy, ranging from anarchy to brutal military dictatorship. We hate kings with a passion, many of our ancestors were willing to be killed to get rid of King George III

But to the topic at hand, the true issue with constitutional monarchies where the monarch actually plays the role of head of state and chief executive is that the reliance and protection of the state is placed in the hands of a small group of people rather than an institution. Say what you will about the American President, no single president has ever been indispensable, in fact arguably two of the better presidents died while in office, but if you place the great weight of the state's safety in the hands of one or a few family members, the state is only as strong as the health and well being of those people. It's the thing that has killed every last monarchy, either they've gone extinct, look at arguably the greatest early medieval king in Charlemagne, he had at least three legitimate sons, maybe more who each had many sons, but their line went extinct in terms of male succession before the year 1050, only 200 years after the great kings death and his empire basically went to pot, look at the Holy Roman Empire, ug.

When you place the heavy burden of rule on a family, it strains them, often exposing the worst of their human frailty, so while in a republican system with the head of state changing when necessitated by whatever, in a monarchy, because they are insulated from change, they will often have the worst exposed about them after they become ruler because something is almost certainly keeping them in power, most likely military prowess, least wise that is the historical precedent.

And lastly about monarchs, they just find inconvenient times to die and because they are so vital to the state's strength, it breaks the system. People are just frail and whether it be body or mind, people falter.

I'm not against the concept of monarchy in theory, though in my country; I would take up arms before a damned Windsor reigned over me as king, it just doesn't work in most places in theory.

[Phoenix Wright]

Neither am I. The monarchy I support would be constitutional, although the monarch would still have power.

Wait, so an elective monarchy? I don't know about that, because both examples of that (HRE and Poland-Lithuania) failed horribly. If there would be a monarchy in America, the throne should be given to a member of the a House of Windsor, the legitimate occupants.

does your monarchy have a parliament or something? say you took away the pm in britain and stick in the queen (effectively giving her the powers that were once the pm's). is that the thing i should be imagining?

i don't see how the two governments are different, in this way. in one case we call it a prime minister, in another a monarch.

i don't see exactly how the structure of your ideal government would work. does your vision more closely resemble jordan?

[blah the Prussian]

does your monarchy have a parliament or something? say you took away the pm in britain and stick in the queen (effectively giving her the powers that were once the pm's). is that the thing i should be imagining?

i don't see how the two governments are different, in this way. in one case we call it a prime minister, in another a monarch.

i don't see exactly how the structure of your ideal government would work. does your vision more closely resemble jordan?

First of all, the difference in this case would be that the title of monarch is hereditary, while the PM is elected. This means that the monarch is above politics, while the PM is not. And no, that is not my ideal monarchy. Jordan is a pretty good example of the kind of monarchy I want, but pretty much the monarch would be around to give authority on issues that the governing body has been deadlocked on. This not only provides more stability, it also gives the governing body an incentive to get off their asses and stop bickering, lest they lose their power.

Some places could use the stabilizing effects of a constitutional monarchy as seen in countries like Great Britain with Queen Elizabeth II, but some places will never have a monarch, the United States being one of them. I believe my country would except any form of government before monarchy, ranging from anarchy to brutal military dictatorship. We hate kings with a passion, many of our ancestors were willing to be killed to get rid of King George III

I would certainly hope America would choose a Constitutional Monarchy over a totalitarian dictatorship, for both our sakes. Its also not true that the war for independence was against monarchy as a system. The colonists were actually against Parliaments, who did not represent them. There was a strong post war monarchist movement, which included Alexander Hamilton.

But to the topic at hand, the true issue with constitutional monarchies where the monarch actually plays the role of head of state and chief executive is that the reliance and protection of the state is placed in the hands of a small group of people rather than an institution. Say what you will about the American President, no single president has ever been indispensable, in fact arguably two of the better presidents died while in office, but if you place the great weight of the state's safety in the hands of one or a few family members, the state is only as strong as the health and well being of those people. It's the thing that has killed every last monarchy, either they've gone extinct, look at arguably the greatest early medieval king in Charlemagne, he had at least three legitimate sons, maybe more who each had many sons, but their line went extinct in terms of male succession before the year 1050, only 200 years after the great kings death and his empire basically went to pot, look at the Holy Roman Empire, ug.

Here's the problem with that example: Charlemagne's empire fractured in the Middle Ages, when it would take days or even weeks to transmit messages. It was much harder to hold an empire together back then. Now, though, modern technology makes the transition of power much smoother. Also, most monarchies have actually been killed due to revolution (Russia, Germany, Bourbon France) or military defeat (Rome, Napoleonic France). Come up with an example that is more recent.

When you place the heavy burden of rule on a family, it strains them, often exposing the worst of their human frailty, so while in a republican system with the head of state changing when necessitated by whatever, in a monarchy, because they are insulated from change, they will often have the worst exposed about them after they become ruler because something is almost certainly keeping them in power, most likely military prowess, least wise that is the historical precedent.

Frederick II of Prussia, Joseph II of Austria, and Catherine II of Russia all disagree with you. Monarchs have historically had no real problem with reforming. In fact, most monarchies banned slavery before most republics. Thats because the monarchs generally didn't own slaves, and so were less biased than elected citizens. Finally, I've provided an example here, so you provide yours.

And lastly about monarchs, they just find inconvenient times to die and because they are so vital to the state's strength, it breaks the system. People are just frail and whether it be body or mind, people falter.

How is there any difference between this and the head of government in a Republic? The death of FDR and JFK both caused a great deal of confusion in the USA.

I'm not against the concept of monarchy in theory, though in my country; I would take up arms before a damned Windsor reigned over me as king, it just doesn't work in most places in theory.

Well, I would take up arms to let them rule me, but to each his own I suppose.

[Phoenix Wright]

but pretty much the monarch would be around to give authority on issues that the governing body has been deadlocked on. This not only provides more stability, it also gives the governing body an incentive to get off their asses and stop bickering, lest they lose their power.

well, i'd disagree. but are there examples where this is the case?

[blah the Prussian]

well, i'd disagree. but are there examples where this is the case?

Why do you disagree? And no, not to my knowledge.

[Phoenix Wright]

Why do you disagree? And no, not to my knowledge.

our elected leaders must now pander to the whims of an unelected, arbitrary ruler. filibustering is an important aspect of the american government; and, to take it away would cause the legislative and executive branches to become unstable.

i'm sorry if the democratic republican system is too slow for you, but it gives people a voice. a ruler takes a little away, and i can't abide by it.

the only change i am 100% behind is changing our first-past-the-post voting system.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

our elected leaders must now pander to the whims of an unelected, arbitrary ruler. filibustering is an important aspect of the american government; and, to take it away would cause the legislative and executive branches to become unstable.

i'm sorry if the democratic republican system is too slow for you, but it gives people a voice. a ruler takes a little away, and i can't abide by it.

the only change i am 100% behind is changing our first-past-the-post voting system.

Actually, no, they don't have to pander to anything. The monarch is there to keep the nation moving along in spite of democracy. As long as the elected government is able to keep the nation moving (they will be allowed a fair amount of time for debate) then the voice "of the people" (honestly, it's debatable if a bipartisan system can properly represent the will of the people) wins out. Regarding filibustering, having it as important doesn't make it any less stupid. It's a dirty tactic used to easily deny the will of the majority, and to render it in effective is a true victory for democracy. Now, I am not in favor of taking the voice of the people away. I am, however, in favor of the notion that sometimes it must be restrained. Fascist movements lend themselves well to democracy and populism, and it is very easy for demagogues to create a snowball effect of conformity for their supporters. See the rise of Hitler and Mussolini. If a monarch can curb the influence of said Fascist government enough to stop them from doing really evil stuff, even if it means that a little bit of the voice of the people is taken away, that is a sacrifice that I am willing to make.

[Phoenix Wright]

Actually, no, they don't have to pander to anything. The monarch is there to keep the nation moving along in spite of democracy.

one would ponder at what this actually means in practice. sure, idealistically, elected officials wouldn't have to pander to the monarch, but realistically speaking the monarch is going to be a person. a person with thoughts, dreams, ideals, opinions, and power. if there is a democratically elected parliament/congress, there will surely be gridlock. now, since the monarch has feelings, the monarch is going to take a side when the inevitable political process comes to a stand-still. can you see where i'm going with this?

As long as the elected government is able to keep the nation moving (they will be allowed a fair amount of time for debate) then the voice "of the people" (honestly, it's debatable if a bipartisan system can properly represent the will of the people) wins out.

all of this is way too subjective to mean anything. what does it mean to "keep the nation moving"? many would argue that debate over issues, despite "inaction" legislatively, is a way for the nation to move forward. what is a "fair amount of time" for debate?

it is equally debatable that a monarch who is able to curb decisions to his will arbitrarily represents the will of the people. (i'd like to add that, in my ideal world, we wouldn't have a fptp voting system, which typically results in a two-party system.)

Regarding filibustering, having it as important doesn't make it any less stupid. It's a dirty tactic used to easily deny the will of the majority, and to render it in effective is a true victory for democracy.

it is a way for the minority to retain some power, and i would argue it's a very important part of the legislative process. it's just that cloture is typically too hard to pass through. i would suggest bringing the required amount of senators to the 56-58 level (out of 100 present voters). basically, i'd redefine supermajority to be 56-58% of the present voting party, not 60% of the full senate at any time. checks are needed on the majority.

Now, I am not in favor of taking the voice of the people away. I am, however, in favor of the notion that sometimes it must be restrained. Fascist movements lend themselves well to democracy and populism, and it is very easy for demagogues to create a snowball effect of conformity for their supporters. See the rise of Hitler and Mussolini. If a monarch can curb the influence of said Fascist government enough to stop them from doing really evil stuff, even if it means that a little bit of the voice of the people is taken away, that is a sacrifice that I am willing to make.

whether that can actually happen is purely theoretical. i think it wouldn't, you think it would.

Wait, so an elective monarchy? I don't know about that, because both examples of that (HRE and Poland-Lithuania) failed horribly.

also i'd just like to say that just because it failed then doesn't mean it'd fail now. all other things are not equal!

Edited July 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

one would ponder at what this actually means in practice. sure, idealistically, elected officials wouldn't have to pander to the monarch, but realistically speaking the monarch is going to be a person. a person with thoughts, dreams, ideals, opinions, and power. if there is a democratically elected parliament/congress, there will surely be gridlock. now, since the monarch has feelings, the monarch is going to take a side when the inevitable political process comes to a stand-still. can you see where i'm going with this?

The issue here is that the monarch, since they are not elected, do not have to pander to a certain party. In the two party system, politicians need to affiliate themselves with a certain party in order to have any chance at winning. An un affiliated monarch would be a way to curb the influence of both parties.

all of this is way too subjective to mean anything. what does it mean to "keep the nation moving"? many would argue that debate over issues, despite "inaction" legislatively, is a way for the nation to move forward. what is a "fair amount of time" for debate?

it is equally debatable that a monarch who is able to curb decisions to his will arbitrarily represents the will of the people. (i'd like to add that, in my ideal world, we wouldn't have a fptp voting system, which typically results in a two-party system.)

First, a deadline would be set for each issue. Think back to the Obamacare vs government funding thing a few years ago that resulted in the government shutdown, only that shit wouldn't happen because of the monarch. Second, I'm not really debating my system vs yours, I'm debating my system vs the status quo. How would people vote in your system, though?

it is a way for the minority to retain some power, and i would argue it's a very important part of the legislative process. it's just that cloture is typically too hard to pass through. i would suggest bringing the required amount of senators to the 56-58 level (out of 100 present voters). basically, i'd redefine supermajority to be 56-58% of the present voting party, not 60% of the full senate at any time. checks are needed on the majority.

whether that can actually happen is purely theoretical. i think it wouldn't, you think it would.

also i'd just like to say that just because it failed then doesn't mean it'd fail now. all other things are not equal!

But isn't a royal veto exactly that? If something passes, it must be the majority, and a veto is there to stop stuff like a bill that reintroduces slavery (purely hypothetical). That is a good point on filibusters, though. Finally, regarding elective monarchy, it gives someone who owes their power to someone, be it a corporation or a party, power for life. That is a recipe for diasaster.