3 ms·

well, Spain is still a monarchy (and has been since the caliphate was pushed back), had a Civil war, where fascists won and then ruled for 40 years... Then the

by fock 7y ago

well, Spain is still a monarchy (and has been since the caliphate was pushed back), had a Civil war, where fascists won and then ruled for 40 years... Then the king declared that he would like democracy more than autoritarian rule (without him). So much to a strong tradition of democracy...

tialaramex 7y ago
Spain has a _constitutional monarch_ the same approach as the United Kingdom. This is actually a more stable choice than America's. In constitutional monarchy the monarch is Head of State, a figurehead role with no real personal power. Because monarchs are born not elected this figurehead has no semblance of democratic legitimacy, it's obvious to everyone that they shouldn't get any power, yet as a symbol they are long-lived and emphasise continuity even as political change happens around them. Elected Politicians on the other hand actually run the legislature and executive government. That is, the laws you obey are made by people you elected to make them, but at times of crisis the living symbol of your country isn't some politician roughly half the country doesn't like. This works so much better than the US system that Americans charged with trying to make new countries or fix broken ones (after "regime change" for example) do not follow the US model for many decades. If you're an optimist, the US model worked once and maybe they got lucky. If you're a pessimist we're just waiting for the cracks to get bad enough that it falls apart.
- adventured 7y ago
  > This is actually a more stable choice than America's. You can't support that claim. Historically - all of recorded history - there are less than half a dozen examples that can be argued to be comparable to or to have systems that are more stable than the US over two centuries of time. Go ahead and list all the constitutional + democratic systems that have lasted for more than two centuries. The European region barely had any democracies as recently as WW1. Here is what that looks like: https://i.imgur.com/fnJNjIn.png https://i.imgur.com/fnJNjIn.png Now go back to 1850 or 1900. How many were there? So where do you plan to get your data from, to support your premise on stability? There is long-term instability inherent in all functioning monarchy systems: the source of that instability is that people frequently don't like them, which is why nations have spent the last few hundred years gradually abandoning or neutering monarchy systems. Most of what remains is a cultural trinket. It's why the monarchy in the UK is little more than a facade, a figurehead; it has no real governing power or position, it is of relatively little political consequence and probably never will be again. Even including the UK in this, is a questionable data point because of that. What does the Queen do? Answer: not much, she is nothing more than a quaint cultural nod to the past at this point. In fact the US has the opposite problem. Its system of government tends to produce too much stability and not enough dynamism (which is what the argument for many political parties is arguing in favor of). That stability often means the US moves slower on reforms and its system is highly resistant to change. Those are the trade-offs inherent in having greater stability.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    So what you've done there is a very common mistake. The US was not the only country built with this approach, it's just the only time it has worked (so far). Plenty of countries especially in Latin America copied this choice and it didn't work for them. I think the evidence supports the conclusion that's because it's a bad choice.

by fock 7y ago

tialaramex 7y ago

Spain has a _constitutional monarch_ the same approach as the United Kingdom. This is actually a more stable choice than America's. In constitutional monarchy the monarch is Head of State, a figurehead role with no real personal power. Because monarchs are born not elected this figurehead has no semblance of democratic legitimacy, it's obvious to everyone that they shouldn't get any power, yet as a symbol they are long-lived and emphasise continuity even as political change happens around them. Elected Politicians on the other hand actually run the legislature and executive government. That is, the laws you obey are made by people you elected to make them, but at times of crisis the living symbol of your country isn't some politician roughly half the country doesn't like. This works so much better than the US system that Americans charged with trying to make new countries or fix broken ones (after "regime change" for example) do not follow the US model for many decades. If you're an optimist, the US model worked once and maybe they got lucky. If you're a pessimist we're just waiting for the cracks to get bad enough that it falls apart.

adventured 7y ago
> This is actually a more stable choice than America's. You can't support that claim. Historically - all of recorded history - there are less than half a dozen examples that can be argued to be comparable to or to have systems that are more stable than the US over two centuries of time. Go ahead and list all the constitutional + democratic systems that have lasted for more than two centuries. The European region barely had any democracies as recently as WW1. Here is what that looks like: https://i.imgur.com/fnJNjIn.png https://i.imgur.com/fnJNjIn.png Now go back to 1850 or 1900. How many were there? So where do you plan to get your data from, to support your premise on stability? There is long-term instability inherent in all functioning monarchy systems: the source of that instability is that people frequently don't like them, which is why nations have spent the last few hundred years gradually abandoning or neutering monarchy systems. Most of what remains is a cultural trinket. It's why the monarchy in the UK is little more than a facade, a figurehead; it has no real governing power or position, it is of relatively little political consequence and probably never will be again. Even including the UK in this, is a questionable data point because of that. What does the Queen do? Answer: not much, she is nothing more than a quaint cultural nod to the past at this point. In fact the US has the opposite problem. Its system of government tends to produce too much stability and not enough dynamism (which is what the argument for many political parties is arguing in favor of). That stability often means the US moves slower on reforms and its system is highly resistant to change. Those are the trade-offs inherent in having greater stability.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  So what you've done there is a very common mistake. The US was not the only country built with this approach, it's just the only time it has worked (so far). Plenty of countries especially in Latin America copied this choice and it didn't work for them. I think the evidence supports the conclusion that's because it's a bad choice.