U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

[Kubrick]

Haha, Belgium is even worse indeed..

[Siggon Kristov]

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.

[derpy]

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.

Couldn't agree fucking more

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Learning the skills and knowledge to lead, in a constitutional monarchy, has little to do with power or solving political problems. Simply, it has to do with carrying out ceremonial functions. That is the power that is being discussed, the ceremonial and symbolic power. Skills, special or not, are critical to the monarch carrying out his or her constitutional duties.

For all we know, the Queen and her Governor Generals advise the PMs of the Commonwealth Realms as to what types of economic policy they should be pursuing. Providing advise to the PM, if anything, is the greatest power the monarch has. It is up to the PM to take the advise and put it into action. So, blame the politicians, not the Queen. A ceremonial president would be in the exact same situation, just without being above politics (directly or indirectly elected, partisan or independent, a president still has to get elected and is often an ex-member of a political party and a former politician) and representing the culture and history of the nation. Even in semi-presidential and presidential republics, the president only has so much power to solve problems without the legislature as the constitution and legislature gives him or her. Yet again, the politicians are the one to blame.

[Aquinas]

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.

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".

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?

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.

Nobody said the Queen is a great political leader; that's not her role. But she's not bad at being Queen, IMHO .

[Reddy]

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.

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? I also seem to recall some kind of report which showed that the Royal Family attracts more money into the economy through tourism than is spent on them. An elected President would certainly not create the necessary kind of mystique.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

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".

The same occurs with elected heads of state. I could potentially see a change in the recruitment process, but it would have to be restricted to the House of Windsor and the monarchs would still have to rule for life or until abdication. However, regency councils are the best way to deal with bad monarchs.

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?

No idea. It could be endogenous. Would require a qualitative study utilizing comparative historical analysis. If anything, for those two countries in particular, I would say the ethnic divide has something to do with it.

[Govenor12]

Haha, Belgium is even worse indeed..

This statement can be applied to every aspect in Belgian life.

[Siggon Kristov]

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.

We got independence from the British government in 1962, but we remain under the Crown and in the Commonwealth (like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and some Anglophone Caribbean countries). My point was that the monarch is ceremonial (with some reserve powers, of course) and doesn't need any serious skills to fill their role. And I don't see what benefits we get from being under the Crown. Some republics (like Dominica, Guyana, and Trinidad & Tobago) are in the Commonwealth and I don't think that we have any advantages over them for being under the Crown.

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?

I agree with this outlook. Everything would be really symbolic, honestly. They could keep the fundamentals of the current political system and have a ceremonial head of state if they became a republic (like India and Trinidad & Tobago did, or like exists in Germany and Israel), but that wouldn't change much in day-to-day politics. A pure presidential model would just be messy, IMO. They could also use the system that is used in some countries where there is a parliamentary system with an executive president (like South Africa, Botswana, Suriname, Cuba, and Lodamun), but power would be dependent on cliques and a certain class would still hold power.

[CCP]

@Liu, all standard UK monarchist arguments that don't stand the barest scrutiny. For instance,

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.

Sounds like you've looked into the costs. Link us to them side-by-side so we can see the apples-to-apples math.

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.

No monarchical or hereditary essentialism there -- this is as attainable under a non-hereditary system. And the tyranny risk in the UK system runs the other way -- towards a dictatorial prime minister using an array of monarchical statutory and reserve powers under cover of the monarchy's supposed non-political role.

Unrelated, I didn't read anyone argue that the US president can dissolve congress. I answered derpy that the US president can adjourn congress, a power which is basically never used.

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.

A republic changes the legitimacy of the power: by democratic will vs. by random birth.

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.

Theory regarding which countries? Saudi monarchical succession is as opaque and more unpredictable than North Korean succession for instance.

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.

The Dalai Lama, the pope, well known former heads of state, UN secretaries general, retired civil servants, academics, pop culture stars, and others variously perform those roles all without a hereditary state office.

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.

This has been addressed, but I'll add that UK constitutionalism and constitutional reform will be disruptive in most contexts since the UK doesn't have a constitution.

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?

These are not like-to-like comparisons, which is where Aquinas claimed he was moving the goalposts by insisting on 'major countries.' The Kingdom of Lesotho has a pomp and circumstance monarchy. Do you know the name of the Lesotho king? Do you think most people do? Because most South Africans do. Follow South African major news broadcasters on youtube for a few months and you'll quickly figure out why: Lesotho politics are regularly featured in South African news and with several minority and no-confidence-vote governments in recent years, the Lesotho monarch has played a prime role.

Relatedly, the notoriety of European monarchs and their families is often spoken of as if taken for granted. My experience as a US citizen is that few Americans know these people's names, even the ones with great media exposure like Elizabeth Windsor, her oldest child, and late daughter in law. As I said in response to Aquinas, most Americans don't know almost any US politicians. So 's/he is well-known' can't be a serious argument pro or anti. What has to be demonstrated is how notoriety of any degree has been developed, what it's deployed for, and whether heredity is essential to its development and deployment.

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.)

Don't forget Thailand, Brunei, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Swaziland, and until recently Bhutan.

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.

Opinion polls and inertia are not democracy.

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.

This has been challenged by others here and causation would need to be established for this to have value as a pro monarchy argument.

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.

These points are not serious enough to warrant refutation. As I said to Aquinas, UK monarchist arguments hardly seem to be trying.