8 ms·

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 l

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.
      - moogly 10y ago
        Yes, I'm from Sweden. I consider "our" monarchy to be a ignominious wart, ceremonial or not. We should always strive to improve society.
    - cmdkeen 10y ago
      Except stability can be used to breed stability. France being on the Fifth Republic makes it considerably easier to argue for a Sixth Republic, and with Marine Le Pen doing rather well in the polls that isn't necessarily a good idea. Traditions have their place in that they become ingrained within the populace and considerably harder to shift.
- mehwoot 10y ago
  Australia voted against the chance to replace its constitutional monarchy because of ambiguities and uncertainties about these questions. People know what they are getting with the existing systems and the constitutional monarchs have no real power. If you're changing that you have to be very careful.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Judging by the results of the last election, the Queen is probably more popular in Australia than any of the party leaders. But I suspect that Australia, and many other commonwealth countries, will vote to become republics after Prince Charles becomes king.
    - celticninja 10y ago
      What if he skips it and William is crowned instead?
      - daemin 10y ago
        That would only occur if Prince Charles was dead.
        sverige 10y ago
        Not true. He divorced and remarried which makes him ineligible for the crown.
        daemin 10y ago
        I thought Henry VIII did a thing to make divorce permissible for kings and prices? Is there an official place where the succession is listed and laws detailed?
        Maultasche 10y ago
        Henry VIII was primarily concerned about himself and producing an heir. He did what he did solely to remove the obstacles that he faced to achieve this goal. All his actions dealt with his marriages on a case-by-case basis, and did not establish some sort of divorce legal precedent. His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question. When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders. Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife. His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard. The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died. So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Plenty of nations have successfully abolished constitutional monarchy in the past couple of hundred years. And generally, one sees that it's been a mistake. A constitutional monarch can be a good defense against certain types of democratic failure.
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.

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.
    - moogly 10y ago
      Yes, I'm from Sweden. I consider "our" monarchy to be a ignominious wart, ceremonial or not. We should always strive to improve society.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    Except stability can be used to breed stability. France being on the Fifth Republic makes it considerably easier to argue for a Sixth Republic, and with Marine Le Pen doing rather well in the polls that isn't necessarily a good idea. Traditions have their place in that they become ingrained within the populace and considerably harder to shift.
mehwoot 10y ago
Australia voted against the chance to replace its constitutional monarchy because of ambiguities and uncertainties about these questions. People know what they are getting with the existing systems and the constitutional monarchs have no real power. If you're changing that you have to be very careful.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Judging by the results of the last election, the Queen is probably more popular in Australia than any of the party leaders. But I suspect that Australia, and many other commonwealth countries, will vote to become republics after Prince Charles becomes king.
  - celticninja 10y ago
    What if he skips it and William is crowned instead?
    - daemin 10y ago
      That would only occur if Prince Charles was dead.
      - sverige 10y ago
        Not true. He divorced and remarried which makes him ineligible for the crown.
        daemin 10y ago
        I thought Henry VIII did a thing to make divorce permissible for kings and prices? Is there an official place where the succession is listed and laws detailed?
        Maultasche 10y ago
        Henry VIII was primarily concerned about himself and producing an heir. He did what he did solely to remove the obstacles that he faced to achieve this goal. All his actions dealt with his marriages on a case-by-case basis, and did not establish some sort of divorce legal precedent. His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question. When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders. Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife. His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard. The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died. So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.
wtbob 10y ago
> Plenty of nations have successfully abolished constitutional monarchy in the past couple of hundred years. And generally, one sees that it's been a mistake. A constitutional monarch can be a good defense against certain types of democratic failure.

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.