4 ms·

> Also, does this label apply to the United Kingdom or Canada? Why would it not? It's not like the head of state wields power in a parliamentary democracy. W

by Lio 6y ago

> Also, does this label apply to the United Kingdom or Canada? Why would it not? It's not like the head of state wields power in a parliamentary democracy. We cut the head off the last monarch to try that 1649, more than 100 years before either the French or US revolutions.

adventured 6y ago
Why is the Queen involved at all in regards to Parliament? The spectacle with Boris Johnson and the Queen was quite a sad joke on supposed British democracy. So long as the Queen (royal family) has any political capabilities, Britain is a partial democracy at best. Realistically they're still a mixture of monarchy and democracy, as they have been for a long time. Although people certainly likely to pretend the royal family has no tangible role or political power (because they want to pretend to be a modern democracy, while retaining the monarchy which they culturally have affection for; which is another way of saying they want to have their cake and eat it too).
- Lio 6y ago
  Our democracy is evolved not designed by a politician. So it might not make sense if your not interested in pragmatic solutions. The queen is NOT involved in the running of state. The affairs of state are managed for her. She’s is reminded of this every opening of parliament when the door is slammed shut in the face of her representative, Black Rod. This bargain has been the basis of a stable and democratic form of government for 371 years. I see no advantage in having an elected “figure head” for head of state if they wield no power.
jessaustin 6y ago
Gough Whitlam would not agree.
- Lio 6y ago
  That’s the beauty of living in a democracy; he’s welcome to his own opinion and if wants to change things he can campaign for it. Edit: ...although it looks like he’s dead so wouldn’t expect much in the way of speeches eh.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    The Queen's viceroy dismissed him as elected prime minister in 1975.

by Lio 6y ago

adventured 6y ago

Why is the Queen involved at all in regards to Parliament? The spectacle with Boris Johnson and the Queen was quite a sad joke on supposed British democracy. So long as the Queen (royal family) has any political capabilities, Britain is a partial democracy at best. Realistically they're still a mixture of monarchy and democracy, as they have been for a long time. Although people certainly likely to pretend the royal family has no tangible role or political power (because they want to pretend to be a modern democracy, while retaining the monarchy which they culturally have affection for; which is another way of saying they want to have their cake and eat it too).

Lio 6y ago
Our democracy is evolved not designed by a politician. So it might not make sense if your not interested in pragmatic solutions. The queen is NOT involved in the running of state. The affairs of state are managed for her. She’s is reminded of this every opening of parliament when the door is slammed shut in the face of her representative, Black Rod. This bargain has been the basis of a stable and democratic form of government for 371 years. I see no advantage in having an elected “figure head” for head of state if they wield no power.

jessaustin 6y ago

Gough Whitlam would not agree.

Lio 6y ago
That’s the beauty of living in a democracy; he’s welcome to his own opinion and if wants to change things he can campaign for it. Edit: ...although it looks like he’s dead so wouldn’t expect much in the way of speeches eh.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The Queen's viceroy dismissed him as elected prime minister in 1975.