5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - talideon 10y ago
      Not really: people can point at the stability of the Fifth Republic and compare it against the previous regimes, which were quite the opposite. That creates a lot of inertia against scrapping a system of Republican government that currently fundamentally still works.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > 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. Why should society be egalitarian? Nature isn't. Why shouldn't society recognise the heirs of great men specially? I think that the ideal government has voices for the great mass of the people; for the magnates; and for a monarch. The U.K. system — until Tony Blair destroyed it — was good for exactly this, although the removal of the Lords' ability to block legislation, and the addition of life peers were recent mistakes.
- talideon 10y ago
  > 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. It's a bit more complicated than that, to be fair. A big part of de Gaulle's motivation for the semi-presiential system of the Fifth Republic was due to the instability of the parliamentary system of the Third and Fourth Republics. Whatever else you might say about de Gaulle, the Fifth Republic has been remarkably stable and orderly compared to the regimes that preceded it after the revolution.
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.

by moogly 10y ago

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.
  - talideon 10y ago
    Not really: people can point at the stability of the Fifth Republic and compare it against the previous regimes, which were quite the opposite. That creates a lot of inertia against scrapping a system of Republican government that currently fundamentally still works.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > 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. Why should society be egalitarian? Nature isn't. Why shouldn't society recognise the heirs of great men specially? I think that the ideal government has voices for the great mass of the people; for the magnates; and for a monarch. The U.K. system — until Tony Blair destroyed it — was good for exactly this, although the removal of the Lords' ability to block legislation, and the addition of life peers were recent mistakes.
talideon 10y ago
> 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. It's a bit more complicated than that, to be fair. A big part of de Gaulle's motivation for the semi-presiential system of the Fifth Republic was due to the instability of the parliamentary system of the Third and Fourth Republics. Whatever else you might say about de Gaulle, the Fifth Republic has been remarkably stable and orderly compared to the regimes that preceded it after the revolution.

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.