3 ms·

> We might still want the whole concept destroyed Be very careful what you wish for. As a French, living under the rule of an elected monarch who changes often

by bambax 4y ago

> We might still want the whole concept destroyed Be very careful what you wish for. As a French, living under the rule of an elected monarch who changes often, but doesn't answer to anyone during their reign, there is something extraordinary to see the British PM bow to the Queen, and do that (I think?) every week.

ikurei 4y ago
I'm curious about this; I don't live in a republic. The PM bows to the Queen, but that doesn't mean they have to listen to the people more than they do in France, no? Doesn't the French Prime Minister answer to the President? How is that worse than having a monarch? Are they often from the same party, thus rendering this answering to the president less powerful? (I know the current PM and President are, not sure if that's the common case.) My impression is that just by being less involved in politics, and generally (not 100%) staying away of corruption and other sorts of scandals (unlike others, looking at you Juan Carlos I) for a few decades, the figure of the Queen can be less jarring or seems more trustworthy than a President usually would. To be honest, I live in a monarchy, and if I could choose we'd transition to a republic... but I've never felt like it would make a huge difference in the quality of our government or our electoral politics, so I just don't really care.
- wwilim 4y ago
  The French President just gets a nice office and a limo for a few years, he doesn't inherit hundreds of years of imperial money and retain strange godlike reverence for life.
- bambax 4y ago
  > Doesn't the French Prime Minister answer to the President? In theory, no, French PM answers only to Parliament. Only Parliament can dismiss them, not the President. In practice, and in normal times, this isn't true at all. When the President tells the PM that their time is up, they immediately resign. (One tried to resist in the 70s and was immediately voted out by Parliament.) This makes the French PM effectively powerless. They simply implement the will of the President. The equivalent to the British PM is the French President, not the French PM. Now there are non normal times where Parliament and the President are on opposite sides. When that happens (1986-1988; 1993-1995; 1997-2002), the PM is effectively in charge of most things, but even in those cases the President still has more powers than an typical constitutional monarch. But my point wasn't about power but about humility. I think it's good and desirable that the ruler has to bow to someone else, and that that person, in turn, has no power whatsoever.
  - forty 4y ago
    Only the parliament can dismiss the PM but the president can dismiss the parliament :)
- randomsearch 4y ago
  It’s really important not to make the false dichotomy of English Monarch vs French Republic. Not saying that’s happening here, but in these debates generally speaking it’s important to realise that France is exceptional and not representative when considering alternatives to England’s monarchy. A US or French style president is not the only or even the obvious alternative to an unelected head of state.
- scaramanga 4y ago
  In japan, everyone bows to everyone. Not sure what the point is. The queen can still secretly prevent legislation from ever being heard in parliament, so... The point is that a president is a) elected and b) works openly.
ertian 4y ago
I've been thinking about this for a while. Watching a swing towards autocracy around the world, it strikes me that republics seem somehow more vulnerable. The existence of a monarch, even as a functionally ceremonial role, creates a sort of conceptual top spot--and fills it. You _can't_ rise to the level of the head of state in a monarchy, that position is taken and can only be gained by inheritance. At the same time, if the monarch (in a system like that of Britain) actually started using and abusing their theoretical powers, they'd quickly have the whole of the country turn against them. And they have a lot to lose if that happens! In a presidential system, the President is both the theoretical and actual head of state. They're already in the top spot, and the only thing preventing them from staying there is convention or laws which are subject to change, and enforcement of which is largely under the President's control. A more ceremonial President might work as well, but the thing is, an elected head of state has less to lose by abusing his powers, and far more to lose by properly following convention and thus stepping down.
- scaramanga 4y ago
  And then the monarch secretly interferes with legislation, while being exempt from FOIA. And gets involved in coups, and has an army which swears loyalty to them, and not the democracy. https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818 https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-s... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-coup-remove-jeremy-corbyn-just-almost-toppled-harold/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-c... But don't worry, as long as people live in a fantasy world where they believe they are just ceremonial figureheads and a benign presence, their position at the top will never be challenged. And at any moment when it does, peoples emotions/grief will be exploited to maintain the institutions by using north korea style propaganda campaigns and security operations: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-operation-for-queens-death-includes-social-media-blackouts https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-ope...
  - 4y ago

by bambax 4y ago

ikurei 4y ago

I'm curious about this; I don't live in a republic. The PM bows to the Queen, but that doesn't mean they have to listen to the people more than they do in France, no? Doesn't the French Prime Minister answer to the President? How is that worse than having a monarch? Are they often from the same party, thus rendering this answering to the president less powerful? (I know the current PM and President are, not sure if that's the common case.) My impression is that just by being less involved in politics, and generally (not 100%) staying away of corruption and other sorts of scandals (unlike others, looking at you Juan Carlos I) for a few decades, the figure of the Queen can be less jarring or seems more trustworthy than a President usually would. To be honest, I live in a monarchy, and if I could choose we'd transition to a republic... but I've never felt like it would make a huge difference in the quality of our government or our electoral politics, so I just don't really care.

wwilim 4y ago
The French President just gets a nice office and a limo for a few years, he doesn't inherit hundreds of years of imperial money and retain strange godlike reverence for life.
bambax 4y ago
> Doesn't the French Prime Minister answer to the President? In theory, no, French PM answers only to Parliament. Only Parliament can dismiss them, not the President. In practice, and in normal times, this isn't true at all. When the President tells the PM that their time is up, they immediately resign. (One tried to resist in the 70s and was immediately voted out by Parliament.) This makes the French PM effectively powerless. They simply implement the will of the President. The equivalent to the British PM is the French President, not the French PM. Now there are non normal times where Parliament and the President are on opposite sides. When that happens (1986-1988; 1993-1995; 1997-2002), the PM is effectively in charge of most things, but even in those cases the President still has more powers than an typical constitutional monarch. But my point wasn't about power but about humility. I think it's good and desirable that the ruler has to bow to someone else, and that that person, in turn, has no power whatsoever.
- forty 4y ago
  Only the parliament can dismiss the PM but the president can dismiss the parliament :)
randomsearch 4y ago
It’s really important not to make the false dichotomy of English Monarch vs French Republic. Not saying that’s happening here, but in these debates generally speaking it’s important to realise that France is exceptional and not representative when considering alternatives to England’s monarchy. A US or French style president is not the only or even the obvious alternative to an unelected head of state.
scaramanga 4y ago
In japan, everyone bows to everyone. Not sure what the point is. The queen can still secretly prevent legislation from ever being heard in parliament, so... The point is that a president is a) elected and b) works openly.

ertian 4y ago

I've been thinking about this for a while. Watching a swing towards autocracy around the world, it strikes me that republics seem somehow more vulnerable. The existence of a monarch, even as a functionally ceremonial role, creates a sort of conceptual top spot--and fills it. You _can't_ rise to the level of the head of state in a monarchy, that position is taken and can only be gained by inheritance. At the same time, if the monarch (in a system like that of Britain) actually started using and abusing their theoretical powers, they'd quickly have the whole of the country turn against them. And they have a lot to lose if that happens! In a presidential system, the President is both the theoretical and actual head of state. They're already in the top spot, and the only thing preventing them from staying there is convention or laws which are subject to change, and enforcement of which is largely under the President's control. A more ceremonial President might work as well, but the thing is, an elected head of state has less to lose by abusing his powers, and far more to lose by properly following convention and thus stepping down.

scaramanga 4y ago
And then the monarch secretly interferes with legislation, while being exempt from FOIA. And gets involved in coups, and has an army which swears loyalty to them, and not the democracy. https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818 https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-s... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-coup-remove-jeremy-corbyn-just-almost-toppled-harold/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-c... But don't worry, as long as people live in a fantasy world where they believe they are just ceremonial figureheads and a benign presence, their position at the top will never be challenged. And at any moment when it does, peoples emotions/grief will be exploited to maintain the institutions by using north korea style propaganda campaigns and security operations: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-operation-for-queens-death-includes-social-media-blackouts https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-ope...
- 4y ago