Political philosophy

[The Gaffer]

You are largely right, Lief, in broad terms, but the devil is in the detail. As Earniel notes, most monarchies these days are constitutional monarchies, which in practice have a lot to be said for them. Having a head of state who is non-political (i.e. not for sale) is one thing, for example.

Recently, Australia voted to keep the Queen as head of state for precisely this reason. Because, of course, in most Western democracies, power is not shared equally amongst all of the people; it is shared out in proportion to wealth.

I think that the current totemisation of Western models of democracy, as if we have reached the evolutionary pinnacle of governance, is a supremely arrogant facet of the way many Western governments deal with the rest of the world.

[Nurvingiel]

That is a very persuasive argument for a constitutional monarchy Gaffer.

However, a monarch could be bought. Just because they will have the position regardless of their political leanings doesn't mean they couldn't be corrupted. Also, installing someone for life based on their ancestory alone doesn't seem to lend itself to honest governance.

(I say this despite having read many Arthurian legends. )

I'm sure the Constitution would limit, or provide a clause of removal, for any incompetant leaders. However, is it fair to make someone a leader just because of who their parents are? Would you like to be King or Queen of England? I mean, really?

I wouldn't want to foist this job on someone who doesn't necessarily want it.

Why is one random union of egg and sperm more deserving of this position than another?

That's why I like meritocracies. I'm such an idealist.

I don't think I could really bring myself to follow a leader who just happened to be born, you know what I mean?

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You are largely right, Lief, in broad terms, but the devil is in the detail. As Earniel notes, most monarchies these days are constitutional monarchies, which in practice have a lot to be said for them. Having a head of state who is non-political (i.e. not for sale) is one thing, for example.

Recently, Australia voted to keep the Queen as head of state for precisely this reason. Because, of course, in most Western democracies, power is not shared equally amongst all of the people; it is shared out in proportion to wealth.

I think that the current totemisation of Western models of democracy, as if we have reached the evolutionary pinnacle of governance, is a supremely arrogant facet of the way many Western governments deal with the rest of the world.

I agree.

But with respect to Australia voting to keep the Queen as head of state a few years ago...it wasn't quite as black and white as that.

The referendum proposed a republic model where the head of state would be a President, appointed by a majority in Parliament. Many people believed this to be undemocratic, and that if we are going to have a republic, we should have an elected head of state (many people have a problem with this option too, arguing that it is too much like the US presidential system). As I understand it, opinion polls here show that most people favour Australia becoming a republic, but there is no consensus on what model of republic is best...and people think that if we are going to bother amending the Constitution, we may as well "get it right".

I agree - having a head of state who is "non-political" is an advantage (and actually...ignore above comment - i guess you're right - Australia did vote to keep the Queen as head of state precisely because the Parliament-appointed head-of-state proposed would be too political a figure)...but I'm not sure what is desirable about a head-of-state who is in practice completely disconnected from the affairs of the country. And the Governor-General (the Queen's representative in Australia) is a political appointment

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That is a very persuasive argument for a constitutional monarchy Gaffer.

However, a monarch could be bought. Just because they will have the position regardless of their political leanings doesn't mean they couldn't be corrupted. Also, installing someone for life based on their ancestory alone doesn't seem to lend itself to honest governance.

(I say this despite having read many Arthurian legends. )

I'm sure the Constitution would limit, or provide a clause of removal, for any incompetant leaders. However, is it fair to make someone a leader just because of who their parents are? Would you like to be King or Queen of England? I mean, really?

I wouldn't want to foist this job on someone who doesn't necessarily want it.

Why is one random union of egg and sperm more deserving of this position than another?

That's why I like meritocracies. I'm such an idealist.

I don't think I could really bring myself to follow a leader who just happened to be born, you know what I mean?

Yeah...I agree with this too

I think the rationale for having a non-political head of state is persuasive...but don't see why this has to involve the head of state being a monarch who gets the job by birthright.

I mean...as far as I know, all the republic proposals in Australia suggest a President who is somewhat apolitical (at least in the sense that I do not think they are supposed to belong to any political party - am not 100% sure of this)...and other countries have a President as head of state who is separate from the government - I don't see why this isn't a workable alternative, with all the same benefits as a constitutional monarchy

Edit - Anyone can be bought....I'm such a cynic

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think that the current totemisation of Western models of democracy, as if we have reached the evolutionary pinnacle of governance, is a supremely arrogant facet of the way many Western governments deal with the rest of the world.

That’s a very good point. I hate to be the first one to quote Winston Churchill in this discussion, because it’s a real cliché, but anyway: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried”. We should recognise that democracy is open to corruption like any other form of government, particularly because it favours majority groups and interests over those of minorities. Money will always have the most power: can any government or president be elected without substantial financial backing? Furthermore, no Western country today is a perfect democracy, because we don’t vote on laws ourselves – we elect other people to do it for us, in the hope that they will vote in a way we like. Like any system created by fallible human beings, democracy is fallible. How can you trust the majority to always judge wisely? Voters are often ignorant, apathetic, prejudiced or swayed by the heart rather than the head. I know I am I don’t think we should assume that checks and balances will eliminate all these factors, and as Eärniel pointed out, monarchies can have checks and balances too.

In its ideal form, monarchy has a lot more going for it. Imagine there was one person who could never be corrupted, who always judged correctly, who was never misled by personal prejudice or weakness. A world governed by that person would surely be better than one ruled by the interests of a majority. That kind of monarchy can’t be achieved on earth, because no such person exists, but it’s a powerful myth – it’s the attraction of a legendary figure like King Arthur, and the reason such figures can be seen as images of Christ the King.

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by sun-star

That’s a very good point. I hate to be the first one to quote Winston Churchill in this discussion, because it’s a real cliché, but anyway: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried”. We should recognise that democracy is open to corruption like any other form of government, particularly because it favours majority groups and interests over those of minorities. Money will always have the most power: can any government or president be elected without substantial financial backing? Furthermore, no Western country today is a perfect democracy, because we don’t vote on laws ourselves – we elect other people to do it for us, in the hope that they will vote in a way we like. Like any system created by fallible human beings, democracy is fallible. How can you trust the majority to always judge wisely? Voters are often ignorant, apathetic, prejudiced or swayed by the heart rather than the head. I know I am I don’t think we should assume that checks and balances will eliminate all these factors, and as Eärniel pointed out, monarchies can have checks and balances too.

This is true.

My biggest gripe with democracy is that there is almost a disincentive for politicians to address issues which are important, but which are not easy to explain to the general public. Global warming, and other environmental concerns spring to mind. And yes, the general public is too often swayed by all the wrong factors. The last election here was (arguably) virtually won on a falsehood ) And yes, checks and balances are often insufficient to protect minority interests.

No political system lives up to its ideals...and no set of checks and balances can ensure that any system is fair at all times. But I think a good set of checks and balances is far more important than any particular model of political system. And as others have pointed out, both monarchies and democracies can have reasonably effective checks and balances

[Grey_Wolf]

Looking at my own country. No matter how you run one there is always going to be corruption in form or another.

Like Sweden where our current primeminister has put all his people on top positions in every department and agency available which in effect makes it impossible for an eventual conversative government to implement their policy since they have first implement everything that the Left has promised.

So I despair of there ever be any change in this country. Too many Socialist (covert communists), medium-communist (the Environment Party) and real communists (The Left Party) who make policy.

Not to mention the Unions, TV, Radio and the Press. Which are all bright-red.

One could quote the Borg motto:
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

[Lief Erikson]

Gaffer and Eärniel, I agree with your posts. I was only talking about monarchies with absolute power, because I was responding to Gwaimir, and that, I believe, is what Gwaimir was talking about.

I have nothing against ceremonial monarchies. They're fun to look at, and they're not supposed to be much more.

Though some ceremonial monarchies do actually have vestigial powers left over that have never been eliminated. In England, the right to any government or secret document they want access to, for example. Queen Elizabeth used that power several times during the Cold War to get all the documents about England's defense system, including even the locations of England's nuclear arsenal, and she had the authority. They had to show her all those documents. According to my history professor, the English have a monarchy that could take a good deal of more important power and could step in for the nation, in a crisis.

But anyway, yes, I like our modern powerless monarchies too.

[The Gaffer]

The distinction is "constitutional monarchy" not "ceremonial".

Nurv, from a rational perspective, you are absolutely right. It is insane that the head of state comes about from dropping out of the right uterus. However, when you think about it, there is a pretty intense training programme. Even as a republican, I find it hard to imagine a better way of ensuring that your head of state is NOT corrupt.

And as the recent Commonwealth Games shows (did anyone watch/care about any of that? yay Scotland's swimmers!), there are a lot of countries which seem to feel happy with the arrangement (53 countries, 30% of the world's population).

Ask me again when Charles becomes king...

Oh, and in the UK, Parliament has ultimate power. That goes back to Cromwell, and indeed to Magna Carta.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, when you think about it, there is a pretty intense training programme. Even as a republican, I find it hard to imagine a better way of ensuring that your head of state is NOT corrupt.

I would disagree with that. What exactly in this program makes a person immune to corruption?

Also, what training program? Being raised by the monarch? You don't always get people like Queen Elizabeth II out of this program. I have a hard time objecting to her, but I do object to Canada's Head of State being appointed by a foreign government. That just rankles me.

Rad as Queen Elizabeth is, I don't want her appointing our mostly powerless head of state. I like having a non-political head of state, except this one benefit has been obscured by the very, very political appointments of our last two Governor Generals. (I did like Adrienne Clarkson though. And I guess Michaëlle Jean is okay.)

[Rían]

*wanders through with tea and a scone*

*looks around*

aaacccckkkkkk! A political thread!!!!!

*runs away*

[The Gaffer]

Come back, we're talking about royals. That's Apolitical...

Nurv, what I meant was spending your entire life training to become monarch is pretty intense.

I would be hacked off too if our head of state was appointed by some ex-colonial overlord.

However, my guess is that, in practice, the Queen only makes the decision in ceremonial terms. I suspect that the decision is actually taken (i.e. recommendations are made) by people who have a bit more knowledge..

[Lief Erikson]

Did you know King Charles II took large amounts of bribe money from Louis XIV of France? Just mentioning . I personally agree that the royals are often well trained and as in my view they don't have much power anyway, they're really fun to have around, even if just to look at and accept moral guidance from . It's cool to have weak monarchs like that who can't control politics, but can be there for show and public relations. It's still a pretty important job, just nowhere near as vital a job to the country.

I like the current constitutional monarch .

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah Lief, I think Queen Elizabeth is great!! I can't imagine anyone else as my ex-colonial overlord.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Nurv, what I meant was spending your entire life training to become monarch is pretty intense.

I see what you mean now.

However, I think the word "training" is being used loosely here. You train in karate, as in you practice a set series of movements with the goal of learning to defend yourself. Your training can even extend to all facets of your life, if you step it up enough.

Royal kids don't so much train (nowdays anyway) as they do simply grow up like everyone else, it's just that your parents wear crowns to work instead of ties and pantsuits, and the paparazzi takes pictures of you wearing a Nazi uniform to school.

Erm. Yeah, I still don't see the "training" part of this.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I would be hacked off too if our head of state was appointed by some ex-colonial overlord.

You have a wonderful way with words.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, my guess is that, in practice, the Queen only makes the decision in ceremonial terms. I suspect that the decision is actually taken (i.e. recommendations are made) by people who have a bit more knowledge..

In practice, the Queen sings off on someone Canadians picked. (I'm not sure who exactly picks though. And I'm only 95% sure this is so.)

However, and I try not to say this too much, it's the principle of the thing!

Seriously. I don't like the idea of any foreign power having a hand in our government. I don't understand why my fellow Canadians get worked up about Americans buying our water and electricity but at least those things belonged to us and we chose to sell it to them. (Or in the case of water, I think we chose not to sell it to them.)

But no one cares that a foreign government installs our Head of State, even nominally!?

What if George W. Bush appointed our Head of State? People would foam at the mouth! I don't see why no one bats an eye that a different government appoints the Governor General.

And yet... I'm not going to do anything. I have no idea where to start in drastically changing the very fundament of our government, and it sounds like too much work.

The Canadian government is like a renovated basement. Over the years it has undergone drastic changes, but it looks a lot better now than it did before.

The Governor is the useless structural post in the middle of one of the rooms. You don't need it anymore and it serves no purpose, but you can't take it out because then the whole ceiling would come crashing down. It's much easier to paint it white and ignore it.

[The Gaffer]

Heh, nice analogy.

You are spot on: it's how our Royals have survived where others haven't. They've made themselves anachronistic to the extent that no-one can be arsed drawing up the documentation to get rid of them.

On the training front, I think an ability to ponce about in stupid outfits is one of the top bullet points on the job description!

But yes, it's more of a lifelong induction process than a training programme per se.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

In practice, the Queen sings off on someone Canadians picked.

I had to read this a coupla times through before I caught the error ...

*imagines QE singing "Yeessss, I will siiiiign off on yooooouuuuuuu ..." *

[The Gaffer]

Yes, apparently the Governor General has to attend the Royal Karaoke Booth and endure 3 hours of renditions of "YMCA".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Goodness gracious, I missed this whole discussion!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Gwaimir, here are some of my thoughts on the differences between monarchy and democracy. I'd be interested in hearing your responses, since I now know you're more in favor of monarchy. It's very interesting to me that you have that view, and I'd like to explore it a bit by arguing against it.

Monarchy suffers from what is described by the old but fairly true statement, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This isn't always true to my thinking, but it's true an awfully large percentage of the time. Democracy, on the other hand, includes checks and balances.

First, let me establish that you are arguing in favour of democracy, which is not the American form of government. Is this correct?

1) That's what the anti-monarchist propaganda tells you. While it's certainly true that monarchs can be corrupt, and there have definitely been bad eggs, people tend to portray monarchs as a batch of eggs that's rotten as a whole, with a few good exceptions, and this is simply not the case.

2) Monarchy can very well have checks and balances also.

Furthermore, as Nurvi pointed out, extremely incompetent or unpopular leaders can be voted out of office. President Clinton was impeached, though he wasn't discharged. Our leaders can be removed. Monarchs can't be, except by assassination or revolt. And if they have all the power of the secret service on their side and the military under their command, they can be awfully hard to either rebel against or to assassinate.

A monarchy could be set up with the possibility of a demi-parliamentary body being able to impeach the monarch in case of necessity.

Hard to assassinate, yes, but few things worth doing are easy.

You only get a bad democracy if you get a bad majority and bad laws, but then you still have laws protecting the minorities. With monarchies, the monarchs are not bound to protect their minorities.

And I say that you get a bad majority the majority of the time. Let's face it, especially in the modern American system; education is in a deep dank hole, people are terribly educated, and they usually are politically motivated by what is best for them.

You MAY have laws protecting the minorities; that is far from guaranteed. For instance, in America the unborn are unprotected. (Please note, I have no desire to start an abortion debate , but as Lief, to whom this is addressed, more or less shares my views on the matter, I think it's a fair card to bring into play with him.)

A monarch is bound to protect the subjects (including minorities) as much as a father is bound to protect his children.

Also, taking a very cursory look at history, you'll see a lot more incompetent monarchs than competent ones. Having a succession of those as head of state is a freaky concept.

Again, that's what generalistic anti-monarchy propaganda says. The demos as a whole tends to be foolish and self-serving, which amounts to more or less the same thing as incompetent practically speaking. Democratic leaders can just as easily (or perhaps more so) be incomptent leaders as can monarchs.

But anyway, there are bad (both incompetent and downright wicked) leaders who are both democratic and monarchical in history, so that we can't say that either is perfect.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Lief, you're thinking purely of a totalitarian monarchy. There are different types of monarchies. Ours for example is a constitutional monarchy. Even the King is bound to the constitution. Always.

In reality the main duty of our King and royal family is mostly public relations with other countries, and they usually pop up in places of disasters in our own country to show their support to the people.

The only task our King has in legislation is signing the laws that the parlement puts before him. (Of course one King once refused to sign a law, the abortion law. The King in question couldn't have children and he just couldn't get himself to sign that law. They had to pull a few stunts to get that problem solved by having the King abdicate for one day so the Prime Minister could sign it. Sort of hilarious, typically Belgium. It was a once-in-a-lifetime occasion, though.)

But in the end it's the prime minister that stears the country.

The last time the King made a careful statement about how he wants his country to be run, people made some grumbling protests that he was wiser to stay out of that particular touchy debate and there was much talks, even in parlement, about whether it isn't about time we moved to a purely ceremonial Kingship.

But a monarchy, even a ceremonial monarchy, is often said to have more stability than for instance a republic. I'm not saying it is always so, I can give several instances (especially in Africa) where it isn't. But at least I think I prefer my monarchy to any republic.

What exactly is the difference between a ceremonial and constitutional monarchy, at least the form of constitutional monarchy that is prevalent? Of course, one could have one where the monarchy has some degree of power, but is still bound by a constitution.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Gaffer and Eärniel, I agree with your posts. I was only talking about monarchies with absolute power, because I was responding to Gwaimir, and that, I believe, is what Gwaimir was talking about.

It depends on what you mean by 'absolute power'. If you mean totally unlimited, then definitely no. A monarchy must have some checks in place, as any form of government must. There must be laws limiting a monarch from taking certain actions, there should preferably (but not necessarily) be ways of legally removing a monarch, etc.