5 ms·

Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.

visiblink 4y ago
Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That is, by definition, not a monarchy
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - true_religion 4y ago
    I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right. Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family. The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    Contrary to Monty Python, you can actually vote for king: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
kergonath 4y ago
Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).
- bluepizza 4y ago
  Also, since monarchs have to be politically neutral, which is another absurdity on top of an absurd situation, a monarchy lacks the powers that a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections. The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > […] a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections. This is a bug. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Tunisian_political_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Tunisian_political_c... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Peruvian_self-coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Peruvian_self-coup_d%27ét... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup > The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”. This is a feature. Let the politicians figure it out or go to the electorate and have them sort it out. (I'm Canadian.)
  - fakedang 4y ago
    No thanks. To take the contrary example, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy by definition, almost taking the playbook of the English monarchy verbatim. Except that the monarch has the conditional right to dissolve the parliament for any "valid" reasons. Monarch hates the PM secretly? Monarch doesn't like a new law being signed into place? Monarch feels a bit whimsical? Find a pretext, dissolve the parliament, rule in absolute until the next elections, by which time he will have devised another method to dissolve the next government.

Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.

nemothekid 4y ago
>You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That is, by definition, not a monarchy
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- true_religion 4y ago
  I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right. Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family. The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  Contrary to Monty Python, you can actually vote for king: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

kergonath 4y ago

Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).

bluepizza 4y ago
Also, since monarchs have to be politically neutral, which is another absurdity on top of an absurd situation, a monarchy lacks the powers that a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections. The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > […] a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections. This is a bug. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Tunisian_political_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Tunisian_political_c... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Peruvian_self-coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Peruvian_self-coup_d%27ét... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup > The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”. This is a feature. Let the politicians figure it out or go to the electorate and have them sort it out. (I'm Canadian.)
- fakedang 4y ago
  No thanks. To take the contrary example, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy by definition, almost taking the playbook of the English monarchy verbatim. Except that the monarch has the conditional right to dissolve the parliament for any "valid" reasons. Monarch hates the PM secretly? Monarch doesn't like a new law being signed into place? Monarch feels a bit whimsical? Find a pretext, dissolve the parliament, rule in absolute until the next elections, by which time he will have devised another method to dissolve the next government.