9 ms·

Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

40 points by Archelaos 5y ago

Proven 5y ago
Barbados and other countries mentioned in the article are evolving, while most European countries are devolving and losing both freedoms and prosperity in the collectivist EU.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
This is a continuation of the story began in 1945 of the unwinding one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Decolonisation_and_decline_(1945%E2%80%931997) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Decolonisation_... > Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to 5 million, 3 million of whom were in Hong Kong.
- Guessnotgauss 5y ago
  Its great that the peoples from so many nations were liberated from the yoke of colonial oppresssion, "empire" was the misery of millions. Why not move on? History has. If we put aside the crimes of empire there is still a lot to forgive. People still remember what the British did in India, Kenya, Malaysia, when the empire was forced to let go. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes This dosent mean you are responsible nor that you should feel guilty for something you had no part in. Be proud of something else, how about the English language.
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  Sad days for all British people
  - labster 5y ago
    Don’t worry I’m sure Brexit will bring colonialism back
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/10/prince-william-climate-change-instagram-earthshot https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/10/prince-william-clim... >"Prince William Is Transforming Into a Climate Change Influencer" So when they say "sustainable development" and not just plain development what does that mean in terms of cost of energy for the "developing" nations? Not only will the climate agenda drive up costs, but it will establish centralized control for the issuance of carbon credits, the permission to consume energy. Get ready for higher costs and reduced access, because your betters know what's best. So yeah, you're still being taxed from abroad, but at least it isn't the colonialism the pop culture historical revisionists have learned to hate so well. "Sustainable" development is advanced as a necessity not to save the souls of the savages, but to avoid the foretold apocalypse and save us all. Remember that when you're in the "developing" world buying an inverter system. It is for your own good that you don't have better electricity service.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      What was the alternative to British colonial rule? A peaceful utopia? Was it exclusively bad or relatively better than suttee? Zimbabwe? https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery/chronology-who-banned-slavery-when-idUSL1561464920070322 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery/chronology-who-ba...
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ggm 5y ago
  Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was split while the royalist vote was clear behind one outcome. I voted for a republic. I wouldn't have, if the intent was to make it a direct election. I prefer the bicameral chambers to do it, a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me, than a standard strong popular elected president. Also, referendum being expensive there was another question about a preamble to the constitution recognising aboriginal Australians. Again, this had divided support because of (in my personal opinion) a dishonest claim it discriminated between Australians. Two questions has some evidence causes higher no votes to both questions than one simple question.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative power into the hands of one party and effectively one person, the Prime Minister. By limiting the president's powers to just vetoing legislation and resolving confidence/dismissal issues, these levers of power would be available for use, sparingly, and in a democratically accountable way. In return, parliament would have the ability to impeach the president or call a new presidential election. This would prevent the president from interfering unduly in the day-to-day running of the country.
chmod600 5y ago
Sometimes I wonder if we generally have too high of expectations about how quickly good government can be established. Technology and media move very quickly, and it's easy to think "just git clone the laws and deploy" and you'll have the same results as whatever country you're emulating. But it doesn't happen that way. I'm not really making an argument here, just wondering out loud. I don't want this to be interpreted as a reason to endure bad government longer than necessary. Maybe just to not be too disappointed when problems don't disappear over night.
- ebanana 5y ago
  ideologies battle, theres a weird russian book on this, its disguised as spiritual knowledge but it talks about trends or movements, old systems directly and indirectly protect the status quo, in order to change systems people have to be influenced in their everyday life, but it cannot be done by force because the old system and its allys will swing back and try to restablish equilibrium. the best idea doesn't always win but the most talked about tends to have the upper hand, until it weakens, then the next system comes along and finally ko's it
  - crocodiletears 5y ago
    This sounds interesting, do you have the title?
chmod600 5y ago
Is the general wisdom that the executive function should be a separate co-equal branch of government (like the US), or controlled by the legislature (how I understand a parliamentary system)?
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  > a separate co-equal branch of government To be honest the US hardly acts this way anymore. Presidents are treated more like monarchs than the CEOs they should be.
- skissane 5y ago
  Contemporary general wisdom is that parliamentary systems (executive subordinated to the legislature) do better than presidential systems (executive and legislature are separate and co-equal branches of government) https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-economically-than-presidential-ones-111468 https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-... It is worth pointing out though that you can have a parliamentary republic in which the President has very limited powers in practice and most of the real power belongs to the Prime Minister - for example, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Malta. Monarchy-vs-republic and presidential-vs-parliamentary are (at least partially) orthogonal There is also the semi-presidential system used in France, and a number of other countries, in which control of the executive is shared between a directly elected President and a Prime Minister chosen by the legislature. Often, the Prime Minister has more power over domestic affairs while the President has more power over military and international affairs. Sometimes they can be from opposite parties which can cause difficulty. It is half way between the parliamentary and presidential system.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    I life in a parliamentary syatem, and branches, all of them, are equal. In pratical terms, there is some overlap since people in the executive tend to be pretty powerful in the legislative as well. If you take France, with a pretty strong President, even the president needs the legeslative to pass laws, he can't order them around.
vmception 5y ago
As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island nations are one thing, but Canada? Australia? Dont get it
- trhway 5y ago
  do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and i think it is no coincidence that their power was the most limited compare to the failed monarchies of Russia, Austria, Prussia. I'm kind of fascinated by the steel will and nerves of the Queen who is maintaining that image of "granny" and is making sure to not show any teeth - and thus she is accomplishing the grand task of the survival of the monarchy on her watch. It it like the only thing that keeps her going is the high chance of failure of the monarchy if Charles gets the crown and she just can't let that happen.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI No, the UK wasn't the only monarchy of a WWI belligerent to survive the war: On the allied side, Luxembourg, Siam/Thailand, and Japan survive to this day; Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Romania, Greece, survived WWI, and Hejaz and Nejd (the latter of which became the monarchy of Saudi Arabia) got monarchies created in WWI. On the central powers side, Bulgaria’s monarchy survived the war.
    - trhway 5y ago
      you're right. I kind of meant the big ones, emperors/empires. The Ottoman Empire is also in the list of the fallen ones.
MarcScott 5y ago
I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.
- PostOnce 5y ago
  Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.
  - MarcScott 5y ago
    But in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.
    - stordoff 5y ago
      In principle, the UK's upper House acts as a house of scrutiny, both in that members can be appointed for having expertise in a particular area and because, as life appointees, they are not beholden to fickle political whims. The Parliament Acts allow it to be overruled, but not immediately - this generally forces a compromise between the two Houses. This recognises the democratic superiority of the Commons, whilst still giving the Lords opportunity for meaningful review and scrutiny. How well this works in practice is a matter of endless debate.
- shasheene 5y ago
  Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-representation gives the smaller states much more power in certain areas, but this is by design. It provides incentive to keep large rural states part of a single nation. Compromises like that makes a country as a whole stronger. Another interesting aspect is US Senate terms are long (6 years), with a third of members up for reelection happening every TWO years. Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. The net effect is it requires several election cycles to have a big impact on the passage of laws. This contributes to stability.

40 points by Archelaos 5y ago

Barbados and other countries mentioned in the article are evolving, while most European countries are devolving and losing both freedoms and prosperity in the collectivist EU.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

This is a continuation of the story began in 1945 of the unwinding one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Decolonisation_and_decline_(1945%E2%80%931997) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Decolonisation_... > Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to 5 million, 3 million of whom were in Hong Kong.

Guessnotgauss 5y ago
Its great that the peoples from so many nations were liberated from the yoke of colonial oppresssion, "empire" was the misery of millions. Why not move on? History has. If we put aside the crimes of empire there is still a lot to forgive. People still remember what the British did in India, Kenya, Malaysia, when the empire was forced to let go. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes This dosent mean you are responsible nor that you should feel guilty for something you had no part in. Be proud of something else, how about the English language.
sydthrowaway 5y ago
Sad days for all British people
- labster 5y ago
  Don’t worry I’m sure Brexit will bring colonialism back
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/10/prince-william-climate-change-instagram-earthshot https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/10/prince-william-clim... >"Prince William Is Transforming Into a Climate Change Influencer" So when they say "sustainable development" and not just plain development what does that mean in terms of cost of energy for the "developing" nations? Not only will the climate agenda drive up costs, but it will establish centralized control for the issuance of carbon credits, the permission to consume energy. Get ready for higher costs and reduced access, because your betters know what's best. So yeah, you're still being taxed from abroad, but at least it isn't the colonialism the pop culture historical revisionists have learned to hate so well. "Sustainable" development is advanced as a necessity not to save the souls of the savages, but to avoid the foretold apocalypse and save us all. Remember that when you're in the "developing" world buying an inverter system. It is for your own good that you don't have better electricity service.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    What was the alternative to British colonial rule? A peaceful utopia? Was it exclusively bad or relatively better than suttee? Zimbabwe? https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery/chronology-who-banned-slavery-when-idUSL1561464920070322 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery/chronology-who-ba...

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ggm 5y ago
Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was split while the royalist vote was clear behind one outcome. I voted for a republic. I wouldn't have, if the intent was to make it a direct election. I prefer the bicameral chambers to do it, a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me, than a standard strong popular elected president. Also, referendum being expensive there was another question about a preamble to the constitution recognising aboriginal Australians. Again, this had divided support because of (in my personal opinion) a dishonest claim it discriminated between Australians. Two questions has some evidence causes higher no votes to both questions than one simple question.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative power into the hands of one party and effectively one person, the Prime Minister. By limiting the president's powers to just vetoing legislation and resolving confidence/dismissal issues, these levers of power would be available for use, sparingly, and in a democratically accountable way. In return, parliament would have the ability to impeach the president or call a new presidential election. This would prevent the president from interfering unduly in the day-to-day running of the country.

chmod600 5y ago

Sometimes I wonder if we generally have too high of expectations about how quickly good government can be established. Technology and media move very quickly, and it's easy to think "just git clone the laws and deploy" and you'll have the same results as whatever country you're emulating. But it doesn't happen that way. I'm not really making an argument here, just wondering out loud. I don't want this to be interpreted as a reason to endure bad government longer than necessary. Maybe just to not be too disappointed when problems don't disappear over night.

ebanana 5y ago
ideologies battle, theres a weird russian book on this, its disguised as spiritual knowledge but it talks about trends or movements, old systems directly and indirectly protect the status quo, in order to change systems people have to be influenced in their everyday life, but it cannot be done by force because the old system and its allys will swing back and try to restablish equilibrium. the best idea doesn't always win but the most talked about tends to have the upper hand, until it weakens, then the next system comes along and finally ko's it
- crocodiletears 5y ago
  This sounds interesting, do you have the title?

chmod600 5y ago

Is the general wisdom that the executive function should be a separate co-equal branch of government (like the US), or controlled by the legislature (how I understand a parliamentary system)?

brodouevencode 5y ago
> a separate co-equal branch of government To be honest the US hardly acts this way anymore. Presidents are treated more like monarchs than the CEOs they should be.
skissane 5y ago
Contemporary general wisdom is that parliamentary systems (executive subordinated to the legislature) do better than presidential systems (executive and legislature are separate and co-equal branches of government) https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-economically-than-presidential-ones-111468 https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-... It is worth pointing out though that you can have a parliamentary republic in which the President has very limited powers in practice and most of the real power belongs to the Prime Minister - for example, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Malta. Monarchy-vs-republic and presidential-vs-parliamentary are (at least partially) orthogonal There is also the semi-presidential system used in France, and a number of other countries, in which control of the executive is shared between a directly elected President and a Prime Minister chosen by the legislature. Often, the Prime Minister has more power over domestic affairs while the President has more power over military and international affairs. Sometimes they can be from opposite parties which can cause difficulty. It is half way between the parliamentary and presidential system.
- hef19898 5y ago
  I life in a parliamentary syatem, and branches, all of them, are equal. In pratical terms, there is some overlap since people in the executive tend to be pretty powerful in the legislative as well. If you take France, with a pretty strong President, even the president needs the legeslative to pass laws, he can't order them around.

vmception 5y ago

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island nations are one thing, but Canada? Australia? Dont get it

trhway 5y ago
do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and i think it is no coincidence that their power was the most limited compare to the failed monarchies of Russia, Austria, Prussia. I'm kind of fascinated by the steel will and nerves of the Queen who is maintaining that image of "granny" and is making sure to not show any teeth - and thus she is accomplishing the grand task of the survival of the monarchy on her watch. It it like the only thing that keeps her going is the high chance of failure of the monarchy if Charles gets the crown and she just can't let that happen.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI No, the UK wasn't the only monarchy of a WWI belligerent to survive the war: On the allied side, Luxembourg, Siam/Thailand, and Japan survive to this day; Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Romania, Greece, survived WWI, and Hejaz and Nejd (the latter of which became the monarchy of Saudi Arabia) got monarchies created in WWI. On the central powers side, Bulgaria’s monarchy survived the war.
  - trhway 5y ago
    you're right. I kind of meant the big ones, emperors/empires. The Ottoman Empire is also in the list of the fallen ones.

MarcScott 5y ago

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

PostOnce 5y ago
Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.
- MarcScott 5y ago
  But in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.
  - stordoff 5y ago
    In principle, the UK's upper House acts as a house of scrutiny, both in that members can be appointed for having expertise in a particular area and because, as life appointees, they are not beholden to fickle political whims. The Parliament Acts allow it to be overruled, but not immediately - this generally forces a compromise between the two Houses. This recognises the democratic superiority of the Commons, whilst still giving the Lords opportunity for meaningful review and scrutiny. How well this works in practice is a matter of endless debate.
shasheene 5y ago
Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-representation gives the smaller states much more power in certain areas, but this is by design. It provides incentive to keep large rural states part of a single nation. Compromises like that makes a country as a whole stronger. Another interesting aspect is US Senate terms are long (6 years), with a third of members up for reelection happening every TWO years. Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. The net effect is it requires several election cycles to have a big impact on the passage of laws. This contributes to stability.