Jessaveryja wrote:I will point out that a monarch is usually brought up with the skills and knowledge to lead. The average person could never hope to learn all the special knowledge and skills that come from being raised by the leader to lead.
Siggon Kristov wrote:Jessaveryja wrote:I will point out that a monarch is usually brought up with the skills and knowledge to lead. The average person could never hope to learn all the special knowledge and skills that come from being raised by the leader to lead.
And later in the thread you argue that they don't have/use much power.
They really serve no visible role in the day-to-day running of the country, IMO, so it's irrelevant whether they have special skills or not.
Elizabeth II is the monarch of so many fucking countries, including Jamaica. I don't see her fixing our economic problems. If I ask why, you may say it's not her job to do it. If you say that, then it's irrelevant whether members of the royal family have special skills or not.
Jessaveryja wrote:I will point out that a monarch is usually brought up with the skills and knowledge to lead. The average person could never hope to learn all the special knowledge and skills that come from being raised by the leader to lead.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:The Dutch and Belgian cabinets were the most unstable, but constitutional monarchies, in general, were shown to statistically (using a Cox's model) have longer lasting cabinets.
Siggon Kristov wrote:Elizabeth II is the monarch of so many fucking countries, including Jamaica. I don't see her fixing our economic problems. If I ask why, you may say it's not her job to do it. If you say that, then it's irrelevant whether members of the royal family have special skills or not.
Siggon Kristov wrote:And later in the thread you argue that they don't have/use much power.
They really serve no visible role in the day-to-day running of the country, IMO, so it's irrelevant whether they have special skills or not.
Elizabeth II is the monarch of so many fucking countries, including Jamaica. I don't see her fixing our economic problems. If I ask why, you may say it's not her job to do it. If you say that, then it's irrelevant whether members of the royal family have special skills or not.
Aquinas wrote:Monarchs usually are carefully trained to be monarchs before they become monarchs, but even so, the hereditary system does not guarantee that every now and then you won't end up with a dunce or someone who, for whatever reason, just isn't appropriate. This is why my argument with the British monarchy would be, "Keep the monarchy, change the recruitment process".
Aquinas wrote:Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:The Dutch and Belgian cabinets were the most unstable, but constitutional monarchies, in general, were shown to statistically (using a Cox's model) have longer lasting cabinets.
That is interesting. What would your analysis be in terms of why that is? Is it more than just coincidence?
Haha, Belgium is even worse indeed..
Reddy wrote:Siggon Kristov wrote:And later in the thread you argue that they don't have/use much power.
They really serve no visible role in the day-to-day running of the country, IMO, so it's irrelevant whether they have special skills or not.
Elizabeth II is the monarch of so many fucking countries, including Jamaica. I don't see her fixing our economic problems. If I ask why, you may say it's not her job to do it. If you say that, then it's irrelevant whether members of the royal family have special skills or not.
This raises an issue I've always wondered about and my Jamaican friends always appeared to be just as unsure about when asked. Why hasn't Jamaica ever sought independence? It's certainly large enough to form a viable state and whatever benefits it gets from remaining under the British Crown would surely be mostly preserved if it remained in the Commonwealth.
Reddy wrote:Back to the topic, I'm a soft monarchist myself (I'm in favour but I recognise that there are some troubling flaws) I think it would be wrong for Britain to abolish such a unique and prestigious institution just to please the illusion that in a republic, everyone has the shot or opportunity to become head of state. This is certainly not true, political system are almost always rigged in a manner which ensures that a certain class of people monopolise power. I mean would it not be better to more concerned with the fact the Cabinet and Parliament are always dominated by Old Etonians and Oxbridge graduates since those are the bodies that actually wield political power?
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:First, the British monarchy costs less than a republic. If you look at the budgets for the presidents of the United States (presidential republic), France (semi-presidential republic), and Italy (parliamentary presidential republic), you will see that the British monarchy is cheaper.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:Second, the powers of the British monarch are enacted per the advice of the Prime Minister. This means that, essentially, the Queen can only use her powers the Prime Minister allows it. This has largely been the custom since Queen Anne. Thus, the powers of the monarch are tied to a democratically elected legislature in practice, making the arguments for a potentially dictatorial monarch in Britain moot. By the way, POTUS cannot dissolve Congress.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:Fourth, in the event the monarch uses his or her powers in the event of a national crisis, without the advice of the Prime Minister, the monarch would merely be doing what most democratically elected heads of state would do. In many countries, there are laws on the books giving presidents what some would consider dictatorial powers in the event of a national emergency/martial law. A republic wouldn't change this one bit.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:Fifth, Jess is correct, at the theoretical level, that monarchs are usually trained, from birth, for their future roles. Kim Jong-un was not trained from birth to take over North Korea. No one knew he was to be Kim Jong-il's succession until the 2000s. Family dictatorships do not apply to the UK as the UK is a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. No one here is arguing that a dictatorship is better than a democracy and vice versa.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:Sixth, the Queen provides a sense of national unity, due to her being above politics and embodying the combined history of Great Britain and its culture. In times of great crises, like during WWII, the monarch is someone the people can rally around. The Queen also raises awareness for a variety of charitable causes. Further, the monarchy itself is a huge diplomatic tool that helps Great Britain conduct foreign affairs. A few years ago, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang made meeting the Queen as a "must" as he led some diplomatic talks with Cameron. Thus, the Queen does far more than conduct small talk and wear costumes.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:Seventh, the constitutional change to a republic would be a nightmare. There would have to be debates on what type of republic to have, what type of elections for the head of state, when to schedule those elections, the powers of the head of state, potential conflict between a head of state and a head of government, etc. It would be far more than changing the title.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:Eighth, Aquinas is correct. No one knows who the ceremonial presidents of European countries are. Putin is the Russian dictator, not to mention the official position of President of the Russian Federation is endowed with constitutional powers far greater than a ceremonial president. This has nothing to do with tv exposure so much as the role they have in the country. Monarchs are far better at the pomp and circumstance of ceremony than ceremonial presidents. Also, which Europeans and Americans can name the heads of state of any non-Western country?
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:1. The monarch serves as a check on politicians, humbling them and making a dictatorship more difficult to implement, especially of the modern variety (you know, dictators being elected and abusing their powers but having a "popular mandate", see many nations in Africa, Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, Russia, Belarus, etc.)
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:2. The British monarchy has a great deal more legitimacy than would a republic, for it not only has traditional and cultural legitimacy, but it also has popular and democratic legitimacy. Opinion polls continuously show high ratings for the monarchy, while the people, through their politicians, are tacitly approving of the monarchy by not abolishing it, making it democratic.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:3. Cabinets, through my own research using post-WWII data in Europe, are more stable under constitutional monarchies than other republics, thereby allowing governments to have ample time to develop and implement good policy.
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:4. The monarch is less divisive, not only due to it being above politics, but also due to the monarch not being elected.
5. The monarch can better focus on his or her position and on the nation, as he or she does not have to constantly worry about running for reelection like presidents.
6. Theoretically, the monarch will put the nation first, as the nation can be seen as his or her property. Rationally, the monarch will want to improve his or her property since he or she will pass it down to his or her heirs. This requires long term focus and benefit, unlike presidents who only have to benefit the nation in the short term to achieve reelection.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests