4 ms·

I don't agree. In fact after the middle of the 19th century you would have a hard time finding a monarchy that performed even remotely as well as a republic of

by hristov 16y ago

I don't agree. In fact after the middle of the 19th century you would have a hard time finding a monarchy that performed even remotely as well as a republic of the same time. (Of course, for this comparison, one would consider "monarchies" that are just republics pretending to be monarchies, such as 20th century England, or Sweden to be republics). Of course you will find plenty of well performing monarchies in previous historical periods, but that does not mean that your statement is true today. Government is actually a matter of technology (among other things) and a republic is just too complicated and hard to pull off with ancient communications technology. Regarding the US, you are obviously referring to Lincoln and FDR, but you are really going overboard comparing them to dictators. The US was very much a republic during those times.

mseebach 16y ago
If you exclude well-functioning monarchies from the comparison, there are, obviously, no well-functioning monarchies. But 20th century England and Sweden are in fact monarchies. They have just evolved to give the people a very big voice in the day-to-day business of the country. Being a monarchy does not mean that you'll have a monarch who'll dabble in every little political debate-du-jour. Roe vs. Wade has very little significance to the long term (100 years) well-being of the US - yet every president since the ruling has had to manoeuvre in that space. A monarch isn't as exposed to (on the grand scale) short term political controversies, and can focus on the long term instead. A popular monarch is a defender of the very long term stability of the country, a bulwark against revolutions. Not a perfect one, by no means, but not completely useless, either.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I could buy that that was true some decades ago, but these days I'm not sure European monarchs can be said to have any power at all. Yes, technically the Queen of England has reserve powers, but only so long as she never exercises them--- if she ever tried to withhold royal assent from a duly passed bill (last done in 1708), or fire a Prime Minister (last done in 1834), she would be buying herself a quick ticket to formal figurehead status, if not outright abolition of the monarchy.
  - mseebach 16y ago
    That depends on what she'd use if for. If she started to dabble in day-to-day politics, say, demanding funds for a certain issue in the budget, then yes. But if a prime minister was successful in getting support for abolishing the limits on when to hold parliamentary elections, or other such irreversible steps towards totalitarianism, the Queen might very well intervene, and, in the long term, be applauded for it. I think it's likely that this safety valve helps to keep such attempts at bay. But the essence of my argument isn't that I disagree with you (much, at least) on that point. It's that a monarchy is a monarchy as long as there's a monarch with formal power, no matter if they're exercised or not.
  - hristov 16y ago
    Exactly what I wanted to say. In fact the last time the Swedish king tried to exercise the powers that he thought he had by not signing a law he did not like, the parliament immediately stripped him of those powers and passed the law anyways.

by hristov 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

If you exclude well-functioning monarchies from the comparison, there are, obviously, no well-functioning monarchies. But 20th century England and Sweden are in fact monarchies. They have just evolved to give the people a very big voice in the day-to-day business of the country. Being a monarchy does not mean that you'll have a monarch who'll dabble in every little political debate-du-jour. Roe vs. Wade has very little significance to the long term (100 years) well-being of the US - yet every president since the ruling has had to manoeuvre in that space. A monarch isn't as exposed to (on the grand scale) short term political controversies, and can focus on the long term instead. A popular monarch is a defender of the very long term stability of the country, a bulwark against revolutions. Not a perfect one, by no means, but not completely useless, either.

_delirium 16y ago
I could buy that that was true some decades ago, but these days I'm not sure European monarchs can be said to have any power at all. Yes, technically the Queen of England has reserve powers, but only so long as she never exercises them--- if she ever tried to withhold royal assent from a duly passed bill (last done in 1708), or fire a Prime Minister (last done in 1834), she would be buying herself a quick ticket to formal figurehead status, if not outright abolition of the monarchy.
- mseebach 16y ago
  That depends on what she'd use if for. If she started to dabble in day-to-day politics, say, demanding funds for a certain issue in the budget, then yes. But if a prime minister was successful in getting support for abolishing the limits on when to hold parliamentary elections, or other such irreversible steps towards totalitarianism, the Queen might very well intervene, and, in the long term, be applauded for it. I think it's likely that this safety valve helps to keep such attempts at bay. But the essence of my argument isn't that I disagree with you (much, at least) on that point. It's that a monarchy is a monarchy as long as there's a monarch with formal power, no matter if they're exercised or not.
- hristov 16y ago
  Exactly what I wanted to say. In fact the last time the Swedish king tried to exercise the powers that he thought he had by not signing a law he did not like, the parliament immediately stripped him of those powers and passed the law anyways.