9 ms·

I propose a deal: Let the man rest in exchange for the abolishment of the constitutional monarchy. Symbolic or not, it's outmoded and incongruent with modern eg

by moogly 10y ago

I propose a deal: Let the man rest in exchange for the abolishment of the constitutional monarchy. Symbolic or not, it's outmoded and incongruent with modern egalitarian society. The list of constitutional monarchies is rather embarrassingly long (37 countries).

kome 10y ago
ay-men
twblalock 10y ago
The problem with replacing constitutional monarchs is that they know their place, but the heads of state who would replace them might not. After all, they are likely to be elected, and could therefore have a viable claim to legitimacy in the exercise of their prerogatives. The Japanese emperor has no political power, and really doesn't cost the country that much to keep around. Remember that in parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government (the prime minister) are not the same person. In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the head of state is an elected president, usually an fairly elderly politician. The emperor of Japan would have to be replaced as head of state by someone holding some new office, who would do pretty much the same things the emperor does now, at a similar cost to the taxpayer. It wouldn't be the prime minister. There is a similar aspect to the debate around House of Lords reform in the UK. A lot of people in the House of Commons don't want an elected House of Lords, because if it were elected, the Lords would have democratic legitimacy just as the Commons does, and could therefore make a reasonable case that it should have a lot more political power than it has now. So, beware of unintended consequences.
- moogly 10y ago
  Plenty of nations have successfully abolished constitutional monarchy in the past couple of hundred years. The role and political power of the head of state (be it Prime Minister/Chancellor or President, or a combination — doesn't matter) should be well-defined in the constutition (which of course needs changing). I don't really see any loopholes here... I find that argument to be a red herring. As you say, in some countries, the official (purely symbolic) head of state has no real power (pointless in other words). That's OK-ish. I'd rather not have a symbolic president. But the main point is to not make the position hereditary. Germany's president, whilst largely ceremonial, actually has some (residual) power by the way, but it's a 5-year term. Not elected by the people, however, which is a shame. For example, Finland's president is.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    On the other hand, consider the example of France. The fourth republic had a symbolic president, and the fifth republic has a very powerful president, because DeGaulle demanded executive power as a condition of assuming the presidency during the Algerian crisis of the late 1950s. That's why the fourth republic ended and the fifth republic began -- DeGaulle had a new constitution written. The situation in Japan is pretty stable. Why mess with success? And if the emperor has no power, why does it matter if the position is hereditary?
    - Someone 10y ago
      The cage may be golden, but it still is immoral to lock up a family in it.
    - moogly 10y ago
      As you yourself say, the situation in Japan is pretty stable. The events in France you mention was during wartime, in the lead-up to what could be called "colonial collapse". Hardly comparable. It matters because a hereditary head of state position (actually, any governmental/establishmentarian position) is a terrible symbol in what should be an egalitarian society, no matter if you have political power or not. I don't know how to put this more succinctly.
      - kiba 10y ago
        I don't know why we should be bike-shedding about something of absolutely zero consequence to the system of governance.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        It may be a terrible symbol, but it seems like people get over it, if they even care very much. Constitutional monarchies, such as the Nordic countries, are among the most egalitarian countries in the world. Japan is egalitarian, both in terms of how the Japanese view their society, and how the wealth is distributed -- they are very close to European countries in that respect, and far more egalitarian than the US.
- gioele 10y ago
  > In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the head of state is an elected president, usually an fairly elderly politician. In Italy the only people elected by the citizens are the members of the Parliament. The head of the state is elected by the members of the parliament every 7 years. The head of the government is chosen ("invested") by the head of the state after a round of consultations with representatives of the political parties after the parliamentary election (basically the president asks "guys, who would you like as your own leader?"). The appointment of the head of the government is then approved (or, often, refused) by a parliamentary vote. It was customary (before Berlusconi's times) for the winning party to elect its own representative as the head of the higher chamber. At the same time the losing party would get to elect the head of the lower chamber. (Yes, "lame duck" by design.) All this complicated dance of indirect elections (that the current parties would like to remove) has been put in place after the WW2 to avoid too much power being in the hands of these high-profile figures or of a single party. "You have not been elected. We, the parliament are those who reign here." The head of the state cannot even address the parliament or get physically near the discussion hall without a written request from the MPs.
  - pastProlog 10y ago
    > All this complicated dance of indirect elections (that the current parties would like to remove) has been put in place after the WW2 to avoid too much power being in the hands of these high-profile figures or of a single party. All of this was put in place after World War II to centralize power in the hands of the Christian Democrats, and force non-communist parties to go into coalition with them. As all prime ministers for a half century after WWII were either Christian Democrats or from those parties in coalition with them, it worked fairly well. Of course even this had bumps in the road so you have the 1948 elections which the communist/socialist coalition won but which was fixed the other way, a strategy of tension by P2 and the far right being blamed on the far left as the left makes electoral and other advances in the 1970s, plus you have Gladio and secret NATO armies in the wings in case the communists are actually elected into power. Of course being Italian, you know all of this.
    - Kurtz79 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  It doesn't matter. These days head of states in parliamentary systems don't do their jobs One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to war in Iraq when the people didn't want it. The best example that it doesn't matter is Blair doing the same thing and Elisabeth 2 not doing anything about it.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Do you honestly believe that the Queen should have stepped in? That would have been totally undemocratic, and it would have undermined constitutional part of constitutional monarchy.
    - msh 10y ago
      The Brits don't have a constitution or a constitutional monarchy.
      - Tomte 10y ago
        Sure they do. Just not a single written document with a big heading "Constitution". Sweden is kind-of in the middle. They have their constitution written, but in four documents.
    - dorfsmay 10y ago
      If a decision is unpopular with the large majority and it is morally wrong, then yes. Otherwise, what is the point of having a head of state?
    - zeveb 10y ago
      If Queen Elizabeth truly believes that her government is in error, it is her sworn duty to refuse Royal Assent to erroneous laws, and use all her reserve powers to correct it (when asked, 'Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?' at her coronation, she answered, 'I will'). Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything. I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.
systemtest 10y ago
Nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy. You get all the benefits from democratically chosen representatives without the downside of the 4-year moodswings. The monarch will always choose what is best for the country instead of what is best for the currently ruling party. It looks at long-term vision instead of just the 4-year term. It takes care of continuity instead of the "this will not be my problem in 6 months" effect you currently see with Obama.
- oldbuzzard 10y ago
  How so? Most of these are explicitly apolitical The monarchy didn't help with Brexit. I suppose it could help broker coalition governments in a parlimentary systems... though Thailand certainly shows how overly broad lese majeste laws and and strong military can have the opposite effect at least with regards to national unity.
  - Jach 10y ago
    Has the Queen even spoken about whether she approves of Brexit or not?
    - twblalock 10y ago
      Not publicly, and she never would. If she took sides in political arguments, she would undermine the justifications for the existence of the monarchy.
    - ordinary 10y ago
      No, but it is rumoured she is not a Europhile.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    What do you mean "help with Brexit"? Is there a reason to believe she should have come down on one side or another?
- satori99 10y ago
  I live in a constitutional monarchy. But my Queen and her family don't even live in my country, and she is rather more attached to the one she does live in. I'm sure she chooses what is "best for the country", but it's not always clear which country that may mean.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Hitard 10y ago
The reason these nominal monarchies remain has nothing to do with the monarchs' unwillingness to let go, and everything to do with the useful diversion of royal celebrity. Oh, some of the european royals have said good things about the environment and peace and the need for civil society, and the japanese emperor notably rebuked the right wing for its jingoistic understanding of "patriotism" a few years back, but let's be clear that it's their usefulness to the establishment that preserves them, not their own clever designs on power.
- moogly 10y ago
  I agree. The "deal" I speak of here is purely symbolic. However, I'm sure if you asked all the royalty across the world, I am certain that almost every single one of them wants to remain royalty and find the very institution quaint and traditional and wholesome. Do you think Akihito does not want his son to succeed him? If the monarch him-/herself suggests that maybe it's time we rethought the whole thing, I'm hopeful that would get people talking about it a bit more. Maybe that could end up being the true power held by the office?
  - Hitard 10y ago
    He indicated in his address that an elderly emperor can sometimes leave the society itself dangerously paralysed (an oblique reference to the pre-war period) and that the emperor "must always be with the people". It's actually a pretty powerful, if careful, statement from someone with no legal influence on the country. We can agree that he wants his son to succeed him (though "want" hardly comes into it) but I think the timing of this abdication has more to do with securing a path forward for the Japanese people. That's something the current political system has failed to do.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Good theoretical argument. Empirically, constitutional monarchies probably do better than the more moded and congruent systems.
keerthiko 10y ago
Are you operating from the premise that a non-monarchy is strictly and uniformly superior? Or that figurehead monarchs are bad? With the former I beg to differ, having lived in the Middle East for a significant portion of my life. With the latter, well, maybe, it's a marginal cost to keep many traditionalists and culturally conservative members of a very proud people sated. Strangely (to me) people sing the praises of democracy and disparage their existing democratically elected government with the same breath. And most citizens of countries led by monarchs have far less to complain about governance (and not, as many keyboard pundits may guess, because of something crass like they'd get executed for voicing dissent). I'm not going to claim either system is superior to the other, but I think it's a stretch to call the existence of monarchies "embarrassing"
- Houshalter 10y ago
  The idea that monarchies are The Worst is meme that has permeated Western culture. Because of a long history of fighting against them. I don't think they are the worst, but they definitely have problems. They tend to be very conservative. They tend to heavily favor the upper class. They tend to be more likely to start and maintain terrible wars. And the system encourages civil wars. And the lack of selection means there is no guarantee the monarch is competent, more than just any random person.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    Is this true? Lots of Europe decided to keep their monarchies, as does Australia, NZ and Canada. This leaves out the US which is not solely the definition of 'Western Culture' Also they don't tend to favour the upper class there's broad support across ideologies and social class that support them. In fact, the republican movements tend to come from upper classes, well true in New Zealand and Australia anyway (not sure of the other monarchies)
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      They keep them in symbolic roles only. They have no real power. And even then there are movements to abolish them for consuming public tax dollars. Not every country had a violent or sudden change to democracy. But supporters of democracy still won in the West. Despite massive resistance at first. I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to their issues and their side of things. Europe has a terrible history of a ridiculously unequal and unfair aristocracy.
8note 10y ago
is it the monarchy thats outdated though? or the idea of having a head of state? Id say it's the head of state -- one person shouldnt have that much power, and the list is even longer! constitutional monarchs do pretty well though, in that they avoid using any of that power to the largest extent that they can.
afsina 10y ago
Albeit flawed, some sees monarchies as being superior to democracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI
littletimmy 10y ago
Ordinary people do seem to like their royalty. The endless fascination that the people of Japan have with their Emperor, the British have with their royal family, among other examples, shows that people do find it comforting to see a familiar face at the helm of the nation. Sort of like a representative of the national will. And "modern egalitarian society"? Please. The only reason democracy works in the US is that the media brainwashes people into acquiescing to elite opinion. There was not (and will never be) any egalitarian civilization on earth.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  > There was not (and will never be) any egalitarian civilization on earth. What about Switzerland?
neximo64 10y ago
There are advantages to a constitutional monarchy. While it is a bit of a taboo to discuss on an large US audience forum, it is quite wonderful to see the advantages of one whilst living in a country. One is the ability to have someone who sees reason or is liked by both sides where there is an opposition party in power. It sort of makes the PM/officials of government ordinary blokes who would use the trains or a bicycle to get around just like anyone else would. Having someone higher up has an impact of some sort. Most European monarchs have their officials of government go around not in such an isolated way. There are others such from the ability to influence issues such as poaching to the ability to remove the commercialisation of certain areas (disallowing adverts or free bidding) to the tokens given out to encourage people to be more selfless (chivalry or the 'sir'). Even the ability to remove a government that isn't working, however rarely its done. I agree it is archaic, there are some really good advantages, my favourite is that elements of a country cannot be sold out for money. While HN is very American-centric, I would advise seeing both points of view on the subject. There are reasons the constitutional monarchy remains despite numerous (and multiple in the same countries) referendums throughout the world to change that. There is an element of choice in this.
ezoe 10y ago
The emperor was forbidden to perform any political activities by constitution. Simply stating his wish to abdicate is considered a political activities, so the emperor cannot even say that. This time, he implies he wish to abdicate by saying "When the emperor dies, Japanese economy will face a serious shock, which I want to prevent it", which implies in the time of his death(I don't know the polite way of saying die in English, in Japanese, we have a special polite word for the emperor's death), he dies not as the emperor so the emperor's death doesn't happen(This is just observation. the emperor can't directly say that obviously because the constitution prohibit his political activities.) It is us, the Japanese, who can change the constitution. To change the Japanese constitution, it requires the national vote. Also, it is my understanding that the emperor is not, by definition from the constitution, a Japanese person. The Constitution defines: The emperor has no political power, his basic human rights is restricted, has no freedom of job choice etc. Japanese people has political power, basic human rights, freedom of job choices, freedom from being enslaved etc.
- 77pt77 10y ago
  > I don't know the polite way of saying die in English, in Japanese, we have a special polite word for the emperor's death In Osaka I saw the expression, "emperor Hirohito succumbed". I found the euphemism quite entertaining at the time.
  - SerLava 10y ago
    That's extremely interesting. But to the author of the parent comment, it would probably be best to say 'pass away'
- eloisant 10y ago
  Well it's not that stating his wish to abdicate is political, but he can't legally abdicate. He's Emperor until his death unless the law is changed to allow it. And asking for a change in the law, well THAT is clearly political.
visarga 10y ago
> Let the man rest in exchange for the abolishment of the constitutional monarchy. He's an important piece in the political equation of Japan, even as a symbolic emperor. Any changes in his role will involve delicate negotiations between the parties and they are not in a good position now to do that.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
I was in strict opposition to a concept of Monarchy, but not anymore. In many countries constitutional monarchs are replaced by de-facto for-life Despots (think Putin and his partner Erdogan), for whom nobody could explain who they are (parents, relatives, children?), where we got them from and what happens when they expire. At least for a Monarch we knew all that with high amount of detail. Who have no legitimacy whatsoever other than a bit of popular support, a lot of police state support and constant twisting of the law. Nobility used to be public, now instead of having no nobility we have private nobility behind tall walls.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Can you explain what would be better if Putin called himself a czar?
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Maybe we'll have a royal family and some princes for a change? Right now we don't even know if he has wife or any children and what's they're up to, and also what happens next. Him calling himself an Emperor is laughable, but having an Emperor with heritage and all the stuff instead of him now looks like an option.
HemanHeartYou 10y ago
>I propose a deal: Let's destroy their culture.
VLM 10y ago
An egalitarian society sounds interesting; someone should try it. I can respect the honesty of a monarchy. We have a fake egalitarian society where most of our leaders must either be Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt, Kennedy, or be closely related by marriage. Not to mention the behind the scenes families that control and pay for it all. Its disrespectful to the concept of democracy to view Hillaries coronation party as anything other than a hereditary monarchy ceremony. If it were not for Trump (and thank God for Trump), Jeb's coronation party would have been held the week prior. In that way I can respect a monarchy much more than a fake, false democracy. Someone in the English queen's family will rule after her; thank you for at least being honest about it.
- BigDaddyD 10y ago
  The big thing you're missing is how the separation of powers in the US prevents what you describe as a "monarchy" from ruling as a monarchy. Besides in your own comment you admit that Trump goes against this idea. We don't have even close to a monarchial society.
- mindslight 10y ago
  I agree with most of what you wrote, but you're falling for the same tired hopechange if you think Trump isn't just the another skin on the same old corruption. The entire job of candidates is to channel people's discontent into support by sounding revolutionary. Once they're in office, their job becomes supporting the status quo and implementing the long-term designs of the people, as you said, who control and pay for it all. This iteration, the red team is frustrated and united (having been straight opposition for the past eight years), while the blue team is divided and unenthused (having seen eight years of disappointment under their own banner). So the red team sees a savior, some blue team defects to third parties or (rationally) stays home, and the cycle repeats. At least my peers will go back to latent libertarianism.

by moogly 10y ago

kome 10y ago

ay-men

twblalock 10y ago

The problem with replacing constitutional monarchs is that they know their place, but the heads of state who would replace them might not. After all, they are likely to be elected, and could therefore have a viable claim to legitimacy in the exercise of their prerogatives. The Japanese emperor has no political power, and really doesn't cost the country that much to keep around. Remember that in parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government (the prime minister) are not the same person. In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the head of state is an elected president, usually an fairly elderly politician. The emperor of Japan would have to be replaced as head of state by someone holding some new office, who would do pretty much the same things the emperor does now, at a similar cost to the taxpayer. It wouldn't be the prime minister. There is a similar aspect to the debate around House of Lords reform in the UK. A lot of people in the House of Commons don't want an elected House of Lords, because if it were elected, the Lords would have democratic legitimacy just as the Commons does, and could therefore make a reasonable case that it should have a lot more political power than it has now. So, beware of unintended consequences.

moogly 10y ago
Plenty of nations have successfully abolished constitutional monarchy in the past couple of hundred years. The role and political power of the head of state (be it Prime Minister/Chancellor or President, or a combination — doesn't matter) should be well-defined in the constutition (which of course needs changing). I don't really see any loopholes here... I find that argument to be a red herring. As you say, in some countries, the official (purely symbolic) head of state has no real power (pointless in other words). That's OK-ish. I'd rather not have a symbolic president. But the main point is to not make the position hereditary. Germany's president, whilst largely ceremonial, actually has some (residual) power by the way, but it's a 5-year term. Not elected by the people, however, which is a shame. For example, Finland's president is.
- twblalock 10y ago
  On the other hand, consider the example of France. The fourth republic had a symbolic president, and the fifth republic has a very powerful president, because DeGaulle demanded executive power as a condition of assuming the presidency during the Algerian crisis of the late 1950s. That's why the fourth republic ended and the fifth republic began -- DeGaulle had a new constitution written. The situation in Japan is pretty stable. Why mess with success? And if the emperor has no power, why does it matter if the position is hereditary?
  - Someone 10y ago
    The cage may be golden, but it still is immoral to lock up a family in it.
  - moogly 10y ago
    As you yourself say, the situation in Japan is pretty stable. The events in France you mention was during wartime, in the lead-up to what could be called "colonial collapse". Hardly comparable. It matters because a hereditary head of state position (actually, any governmental/establishmentarian position) is a terrible symbol in what should be an egalitarian society, no matter if you have political power or not. I don't know how to put this more succinctly.
    - kiba 10y ago
      I don't know why we should be bike-shedding about something of absolutely zero consequence to the system of governance.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      It may be a terrible symbol, but it seems like people get over it, if they even care very much. Constitutional monarchies, such as the Nordic countries, are among the most egalitarian countries in the world. Japan is egalitarian, both in terms of how the Japanese view their society, and how the wealth is distributed -- they are very close to European countries in that respect, and far more egalitarian than the US.
gioele 10y ago
> In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the head of state is an elected president, usually an fairly elderly politician. In Italy the only people elected by the citizens are the members of the Parliament. The head of the state is elected by the members of the parliament every 7 years. The head of the government is chosen ("invested") by the head of the state after a round of consultations with representatives of the political parties after the parliamentary election (basically the president asks "guys, who would you like as your own leader?"). The appointment of the head of the government is then approved (or, often, refused) by a parliamentary vote. It was customary (before Berlusconi's times) for the winning party to elect its own representative as the head of the higher chamber. At the same time the losing party would get to elect the head of the lower chamber. (Yes, "lame duck" by design.) All this complicated dance of indirect elections (that the current parties would like to remove) has been put in place after the WW2 to avoid too much power being in the hands of these high-profile figures or of a single party. "You have not been elected. We, the parliament are those who reign here." The head of the state cannot even address the parliament or get physically near the discussion hall without a written request from the MPs.
- pastProlog 10y ago
  > All this complicated dance of indirect elections (that the current parties would like to remove) has been put in place after the WW2 to avoid too much power being in the hands of these high-profile figures or of a single party. All of this was put in place after World War II to centralize power in the hands of the Christian Democrats, and force non-communist parties to go into coalition with them. As all prime ministers for a half century after WWII were either Christian Democrats or from those parties in coalition with them, it worked fairly well. Of course even this had bumps in the road so you have the 1948 elections which the communist/socialist coalition won but which was fixed the other way, a strategy of tension by P2 and the far right being blamed on the far left as the left makes electoral and other advances in the 1970s, plus you have Gladio and secret NATO armies in the wings in case the communists are actually elected into power. Of course being Italian, you know all of this.
  - Kurtz79 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dorfsmay 10y ago
It doesn't matter. These days head of states in parliamentary systems don't do their jobs One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to war in Iraq when the people didn't want it. The best example that it doesn't matter is Blair doing the same thing and Elisabeth 2 not doing anything about it.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Do you honestly believe that the Queen should have stepped in? That would have been totally undemocratic, and it would have undermined constitutional part of constitutional monarchy.
  - msh 10y ago
    The Brits don't have a constitution or a constitutional monarchy.
    - Tomte 10y ago
      Sure they do. Just not a single written document with a big heading "Constitution". Sweden is kind-of in the middle. They have their constitution written, but in four documents.
  - dorfsmay 10y ago
    If a decision is unpopular with the large majority and it is morally wrong, then yes. Otherwise, what is the point of having a head of state?
  - zeveb 10y ago
    If Queen Elizabeth truly believes that her government is in error, it is her sworn duty to refuse Royal Assent to erroneous laws, and use all her reserve powers to correct it (when asked, 'Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?' at her coronation, she answered, 'I will'). Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything. I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.

systemtest 10y ago

Nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy. You get all the benefits from democratically chosen representatives without the downside of the 4-year moodswings. The monarch will always choose what is best for the country instead of what is best for the currently ruling party. It looks at long-term vision instead of just the 4-year term. It takes care of continuity instead of the "this will not be my problem in 6 months" effect you currently see with Obama.

oldbuzzard 10y ago
How so? Most of these are explicitly apolitical The monarchy didn't help with Brexit. I suppose it could help broker coalition governments in a parlimentary systems... though Thailand certainly shows how overly broad lese majeste laws and and strong military can have the opposite effect at least with regards to national unity.
- Jach 10y ago
  Has the Queen even spoken about whether she approves of Brexit or not?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Not publicly, and she never would. If she took sides in political arguments, she would undermine the justifications for the existence of the monarchy.
  - ordinary 10y ago
    No, but it is rumoured she is not a Europhile.
- gozur88 10y ago
  What do you mean "help with Brexit"? Is there a reason to believe she should have come down on one side or another?
satori99 10y ago
I live in a constitutional monarchy. But my Queen and her family don't even live in my country, and she is rather more attached to the one she does live in. I'm sure she chooses what is "best for the country", but it's not always clear which country that may mean.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Hitard 10y ago

The reason these nominal monarchies remain has nothing to do with the monarchs' unwillingness to let go, and everything to do with the useful diversion of royal celebrity. Oh, some of the european royals have said good things about the environment and peace and the need for civil society, and the japanese emperor notably rebuked the right wing for its jingoistic understanding of "patriotism" a few years back, but let's be clear that it's their usefulness to the establishment that preserves them, not their own clever designs on power.

moogly 10y ago
I agree. The "deal" I speak of here is purely symbolic. However, I'm sure if you asked all the royalty across the world, I am certain that almost every single one of them wants to remain royalty and find the very institution quaint and traditional and wholesome. Do you think Akihito does not want his son to succeed him? If the monarch him-/herself suggests that maybe it's time we rethought the whole thing, I'm hopeful that would get people talking about it a bit more. Maybe that could end up being the true power held by the office?
- Hitard 10y ago
  He indicated in his address that an elderly emperor can sometimes leave the society itself dangerously paralysed (an oblique reference to the pre-war period) and that the emperor "must always be with the people". It's actually a pretty powerful, if careful, statement from someone with no legal influence on the country. We can agree that he wants his son to succeed him (though "want" hardly comes into it) but I think the timing of this abdication has more to do with securing a path forward for the Japanese people. That's something the current political system has failed to do.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Good theoretical argument. Empirically, constitutional monarchies probably do better than the more moded and congruent systems.

keerthiko 10y ago

Are you operating from the premise that a non-monarchy is strictly and uniformly superior? Or that figurehead monarchs are bad? With the former I beg to differ, having lived in the Middle East for a significant portion of my life. With the latter, well, maybe, it's a marginal cost to keep many traditionalists and culturally conservative members of a very proud people sated. Strangely (to me) people sing the praises of democracy and disparage their existing democratically elected government with the same breath. And most citizens of countries led by monarchs have far less to complain about governance (and not, as many keyboard pundits may guess, because of something crass like they'd get executed for voicing dissent). I'm not going to claim either system is superior to the other, but I think it's a stretch to call the existence of monarchies "embarrassing"

Houshalter 10y ago
The idea that monarchies are The Worst is meme that has permeated Western culture. Because of a long history of fighting against them. I don't think they are the worst, but they definitely have problems. They tend to be very conservative. They tend to heavily favor the upper class. They tend to be more likely to start and maintain terrible wars. And the system encourages civil wars. And the lack of selection means there is no guarantee the monarch is competent, more than just any random person.
- neximo64 10y ago
  Is this true? Lots of Europe decided to keep their monarchies, as does Australia, NZ and Canada. This leaves out the US which is not solely the definition of 'Western Culture' Also they don't tend to favour the upper class there's broad support across ideologies and social class that support them. In fact, the republican movements tend to come from upper classes, well true in New Zealand and Australia anyway (not sure of the other monarchies)
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    They keep them in symbolic roles only. They have no real power. And even then there are movements to abolish them for consuming public tax dollars. Not every country had a violent or sudden change to democracy. But supporters of democracy still won in the West. Despite massive resistance at first. I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to their issues and their side of things. Europe has a terrible history of a ridiculously unequal and unfair aristocracy.

8note 10y ago

is it the monarchy thats outdated though? or the idea of having a head of state? Id say it's the head of state -- one person shouldnt have that much power, and the list is even longer! constitutional monarchs do pretty well though, in that they avoid using any of that power to the largest extent that they can.

afsina 10y ago

Albeit flawed, some sees monarchies as being superior to democracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI

littletimmy 10y ago

Ordinary people do seem to like their royalty. The endless fascination that the people of Japan have with their Emperor, the British have with their royal family, among other examples, shows that people do find it comforting to see a familiar face at the helm of the nation. Sort of like a representative of the national will. And "modern egalitarian society"? Please. The only reason democracy works in the US is that the media brainwashes people into acquiescing to elite opinion. There was not (and will never be) any egalitarian civilization on earth.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
> There was not (and will never be) any egalitarian civilization on earth. What about Switzerland?

neximo64 10y ago

There are advantages to a constitutional monarchy. While it is a bit of a taboo to discuss on an large US audience forum, it is quite wonderful to see the advantages of one whilst living in a country. One is the ability to have someone who sees reason or is liked by both sides where there is an opposition party in power. It sort of makes the PM/officials of government ordinary blokes who would use the trains or a bicycle to get around just like anyone else would. Having someone higher up has an impact of some sort. Most European monarchs have their officials of government go around not in such an isolated way. There are others such from the ability to influence issues such as poaching to the ability to remove the commercialisation of certain areas (disallowing adverts or free bidding) to the tokens given out to encourage people to be more selfless (chivalry or the 'sir'). Even the ability to remove a government that isn't working, however rarely its done. I agree it is archaic, there are some really good advantages, my favourite is that elements of a country cannot be sold out for money. While HN is very American-centric, I would advise seeing both points of view on the subject. There are reasons the constitutional monarchy remains despite numerous (and multiple in the same countries) referendums throughout the world to change that. There is an element of choice in this.

ezoe 10y ago

The emperor was forbidden to perform any political activities by constitution. Simply stating his wish to abdicate is considered a political activities, so the emperor cannot even say that. This time, he implies he wish to abdicate by saying "When the emperor dies, Japanese economy will face a serious shock, which I want to prevent it", which implies in the time of his death(I don't know the polite way of saying die in English, in Japanese, we have a special polite word for the emperor's death), he dies not as the emperor so the emperor's death doesn't happen(This is just observation. the emperor can't directly say that obviously because the constitution prohibit his political activities.) It is us, the Japanese, who can change the constitution. To change the Japanese constitution, it requires the national vote. Also, it is my understanding that the emperor is not, by definition from the constitution, a Japanese person. The Constitution defines: The emperor has no political power, his basic human rights is restricted, has no freedom of job choice etc. Japanese people has political power, basic human rights, freedom of job choices, freedom from being enslaved etc.

77pt77 10y ago
> I don't know the polite way of saying die in English, in Japanese, we have a special polite word for the emperor's death In Osaka I saw the expression, "emperor Hirohito succumbed". I found the euphemism quite entertaining at the time.
- SerLava 10y ago
  That's extremely interesting. But to the author of the parent comment, it would probably be best to say 'pass away'
eloisant 10y ago
Well it's not that stating his wish to abdicate is political, but he can't legally abdicate. He's Emperor until his death unless the law is changed to allow it. And asking for a change in the law, well THAT is clearly political.

visarga 10y ago

> Let the man rest in exchange for the abolishment of the constitutional monarchy. He's an important piece in the political equation of Japan, even as a symbolic emperor. Any changes in his role will involve delicate negotiations between the parties and they are not in a good position now to do that.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

I was in strict opposition to a concept of Monarchy, but not anymore. In many countries constitutional monarchs are replaced by de-facto for-life Despots (think Putin and his partner Erdogan), for whom nobody could explain who they are (parents, relatives, children?), where we got them from and what happens when they expire. At least for a Monarch we knew all that with high amount of detail. Who have no legitimacy whatsoever other than a bit of popular support, a lot of police state support and constant twisting of the law. Nobility used to be public, now instead of having no nobility we have private nobility behind tall walls.

oldmanjay 10y ago
Can you explain what would be better if Putin called himself a czar?
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Maybe we'll have a royal family and some princes for a change? Right now we don't even know if he has wife or any children and what's they're up to, and also what happens next. Him calling himself an Emperor is laughable, but having an Emperor with heritage and all the stuff instead of him now looks like an option.

HemanHeartYou 10y ago

>I propose a deal: Let's destroy their culture.

VLM 10y ago

An egalitarian society sounds interesting; someone should try it. I can respect the honesty of a monarchy. We have a fake egalitarian society where most of our leaders must either be Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt, Kennedy, or be closely related by marriage. Not to mention the behind the scenes families that control and pay for it all. Its disrespectful to the concept of democracy to view Hillaries coronation party as anything other than a hereditary monarchy ceremony. If it were not for Trump (and thank God for Trump), Jeb's coronation party would have been held the week prior. In that way I can respect a monarchy much more than a fake, false democracy. Someone in the English queen's family will rule after her; thank you for at least being honest about it.

BigDaddyD 10y ago
The big thing you're missing is how the separation of powers in the US prevents what you describe as a "monarchy" from ruling as a monarchy. Besides in your own comment you admit that Trump goes against this idea. We don't have even close to a monarchial society.
mindslight 10y ago
I agree with most of what you wrote, but you're falling for the same tired hopechange if you think Trump isn't just the another skin on the same old corruption. The entire job of candidates is to channel people's discontent into support by sounding revolutionary. Once they're in office, their job becomes supporting the status quo and implementing the long-term designs of the people, as you said, who control and pay for it all. This iteration, the red team is frustrated and united (having been straight opposition for the past eight years), while the blue team is divided and unenthused (having seen eight years of disappointment under their own banner). So the red team sees a savior, some blue team defects to third parties or (rationally) stays home, and the cycle repeats. At least my peers will go back to latent libertarianism.