5 ms·

A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundame

A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles" Exactly (part of) why I'm in support of the monarchy in the UK. If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, not the government (I'm from an army family and know this is taken seriously). We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.

Jugurtha 10y ago
>We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it. Could you elaborate, please?
- desas 10y ago
  The monarch can suspend parliament. The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years). The monarch can appoint a new one. Every law has to be signed by the monarch (it's not been refused in 300 years). The monarch is commander in chief. Power resides where people believe it resides. The monarch can only do any of that if people believe in the monarch.
  - jonny_eh 10y ago
    > Power resides where people believe it resides Also, sometimes power resides where the military decides.
  - throwaway-hn123 10y ago
    The monarch can do all those things, but in reality if she tried to dismiss a PM or refuse to sign a bill, it would be a matter of days or weeks before the monarchy ceased to be an institution.
  - nl 10y ago
    The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years). Actually, in Australia the Queen's representative (the Governor General) did dismiss the Prime Minister[1]. Interestingly, the Governor General position is closer to a ceremonial president in many other places in that they are appointed by the PM. If the PM at the time had acted to sack the Governor General that would have been just as legal as the other way around. (Actually there are some good arguments that sacking the GG would have been "more" legal, in that the GG is supposed to act on the PM's advice. Fortunately the PM didn't push the issue, because that is the road to real trouble) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
_pferreir_ 10y ago
What does that have to do with monarchy? The same happens in some republics. E.g. in Portugal there is a prime minister (government) and a president who acts as supreme commander of the armed forces.
- foota 10y ago
  Probably because the monarchy isn't elected and so might maintain some ability to persevere through times when the population might make poor decisions. Also immune to bad elections.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Heads of state (eg presidents) are frequently not elected, but instead appointed by heads of government (eg prime ministers). Heads of state are symbolic and do lots of ceremony (some have a bit of power), and heads of government are where the power sits. Heads of state can usually have the power to dissolve government in a crisis, but they can't appoint government (in western democracies). The US is a little unusual amongst Western democracies in that the head of state is the same person as the head of government.
  - stouset 10y ago
    And what happens if the monarchy makes poor decisions?
sanderjd 10y ago
This is similar to the US system, except that our Speaker of the House has less power than the Prime Minister, and our President has (a lot) more power than the monarch.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  Those changes take away the benefit he outlines for his system. In the US system the President is the most dangerous actor (notwithstanding the Federalist Papers prediction that it would be Congress). That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of the military as a last resort. At most I think it would be best if they stood aside for a revolution rather than actually instigating a coup.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    In the US, the last resort is theoretically the Unorganized Militia. However, as the name implies, they are unorganized and to rely on them is leaning on a broken staff.
    - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
      but it is not even necessary for the unorganized militia to topple whatever entity takes power. The unorganized militia just needs to be omnipresent and unorganized. Not really a staff, but rather millions of pegs supporting the table of society.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  No, the army gives allegiance to the Constitution. I hope they stand for that against any branch of government.
  - nl 10y ago
    In the US the armed forces swear to defend the Constitution and to obey the President[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oat...
feral 10y ago
>If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs that the army in a 'democracy' swears allegiance to a hereditary monarch, and that its good, if as you say, people in the army take that seriously. What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In some sense that meant 'push was coming to shove'? The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family, who some time in the past probably did some game-of-thrones nasty things to come out on top. No one seriously believes they have a divine right to rule any more, so why should their interests be privileged over the interests of the population at large? Whatever about an elected head of state with symbolic power, the people can at least remove, really, the hereditary monarch argument just seems like an argument from the 18th century. I'm from the Republic of Ireland, which is culturally very similar to the UK, but wow, what a difference in perspective on this issue!
- int_19h 10y ago
  The idea is that the monarch cannot really exercise that power arbitrarily. If they try, their legitimacy will be questioned. But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.
- vacri 10y ago
  > The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill... It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties. Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".
tyfon 10y ago
It's the same here in Norway, the king is actually a six star general and commander in chief of the army. In addition (s)he can veto laws that then have to be passed by 2/3 majority to succeed. Not that the royals have used this power ever but it is a good check on the parlament.

Jugurtha 10y ago

>We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it. Could you elaborate, please?

desas 10y ago
The monarch can suspend parliament. The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years). The monarch can appoint a new one. Every law has to be signed by the monarch (it's not been refused in 300 years). The monarch is commander in chief. Power resides where people believe it resides. The monarch can only do any of that if people believe in the monarch.
- jonny_eh 10y ago
  > Power resides where people believe it resides Also, sometimes power resides where the military decides.
- throwaway-hn123 10y ago
  The monarch can do all those things, but in reality if she tried to dismiss a PM or refuse to sign a bill, it would be a matter of days or weeks before the monarchy ceased to be an institution.
- nl 10y ago
  The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years). Actually, in Australia the Queen's representative (the Governor General) did dismiss the Prime Minister[1]. Interestingly, the Governor General position is closer to a ceremonial president in many other places in that they are appointed by the PM. If the PM at the time had acted to sack the Governor General that would have been just as legal as the other way around. (Actually there are some good arguments that sacking the GG would have been "more" legal, in that the GG is supposed to act on the PM's advice. Fortunately the PM didn't push the issue, because that is the road to real trouble) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

_pferreir_ 10y ago

What does that have to do with monarchy? The same happens in some republics. E.g. in Portugal there is a prime minister (government) and a president who acts as supreme commander of the armed forces.

foota 10y ago
Probably because the monarchy isn't elected and so might maintain some ability to persevere through times when the population might make poor decisions. Also immune to bad elections.
- vacri 10y ago
  Heads of state (eg presidents) are frequently not elected, but instead appointed by heads of government (eg prime ministers). Heads of state are symbolic and do lots of ceremony (some have a bit of power), and heads of government are where the power sits. Heads of state can usually have the power to dissolve government in a crisis, but they can't appoint government (in western democracies). The US is a little unusual amongst Western democracies in that the head of state is the same person as the head of government.
- stouset 10y ago
  And what happens if the monarchy makes poor decisions?

sanderjd 10y ago

This is similar to the US system, except that our Speaker of the House has less power than the Prime Minister, and our President has (a lot) more power than the monarch.

bradleyjg 10y ago
Those changes take away the benefit he outlines for his system. In the US system the President is the most dangerous actor (notwithstanding the Federalist Papers prediction that it would be Congress). That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of the military as a last resort. At most I think it would be best if they stood aside for a revolution rather than actually instigating a coup.
- afarrell 10y ago
  In the US, the last resort is theoretically the Unorganized Militia. However, as the name implies, they are unorganized and to rely on them is leaning on a broken staff.
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    but it is not even necessary for the unorganized militia to topple whatever entity takes power. The unorganized militia just needs to be omnipresent and unorganized. Not really a staff, but rather millions of pegs supporting the table of society.
unethical_ban 10y ago
No, the army gives allegiance to the Constitution. I hope they stand for that against any branch of government.
- nl 10y ago
  In the US the armed forces swear to defend the Constitution and to obey the President[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oat...

feral 10y ago

>If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs that the army in a 'democracy' swears allegiance to a hereditary monarch, and that its good, if as you say, people in the army take that seriously. What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In some sense that meant 'push was coming to shove'? The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family, who some time in the past probably did some game-of-thrones nasty things to come out on top. No one seriously believes they have a divine right to rule any more, so why should their interests be privileged over the interests of the population at large? Whatever about an elected head of state with symbolic power, the people can at least remove, really, the hereditary monarch argument just seems like an argument from the 18th century. I'm from the Republic of Ireland, which is culturally very similar to the UK, but wow, what a difference in perspective on this issue!

int_19h 10y ago
The idea is that the monarch cannot really exercise that power arbitrarily. If they try, their legitimacy will be questioned. But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.
vacri 10y ago
> The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill... It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties. Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".

tyfon 10y ago

It's the same here in Norway, the king is actually a six star general and commander in chief of the army. In addition (s)he can veto laws that then have to be passed by 2/3 majority to succeed. Not that the royals have used this power ever but it is a good check on the parlament.