3 ms·
Ok, but then it must be accepted that a "British style constitutional monarchy" is not a full democracy, given that in certain situations a non-elected head of
by telmo 4y ago
Ok, but then it must be accepted that a "British style constitutional monarchy" is not a full democracy, given that in certain situations a non-elected head of state holds real power.
I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics.
It is good to point out that one cannot have it both ways. Either this is indeed a coup, or the regime is not a full democracy.
- Defletter 4y agoAnything short of a direct democracy is not a full democracy
- Eleison23 4y agoWell get into your TARDIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
- telmo 4y agoI disagree. Direct vs representative democracy is orthogonal to this issue. In a representative democracy, the mandate to exercise power still comes from popular vote. That is a qualitatively different situation from one where someone can exercise power by virtue of birth.
- Defletter 4y agoThey're not orthogonal, direct democracy is the logical conclusion to your definition. Moving on from that though, I disagree that being a Constitutional Monarchy means we're not a full democracy; likewise, being a Republic doesn't gurauntee full democracy... look at America for the easiest example of this. I can give more specific examples if you'd like. Anyway, the King exercises power with the acquiescence of the public. We can abolish the Monarchy but we choose not to. Indeed, Australia can choose to emancipate themselves from the Crown, they just haven't. The fact that we can choose and there's no limitation on our ability to choose proves that their mere existence in our establishment doesn't inherently diminish our democracy.
- SllX 4y ago> I believe this sort of news appears in the context of it being commonly argued that in a "British style constitutional monarchy" the monarch holds no real power, and people who suggest otherwise are often dismissed as lunatics. Almost every Brit I’ve ever spoken to about this will fastidiously argue that the Queen or King in power holds no real power. I simply don’t believe them. Given a constitutional crisis large enough for the House of Commons to want to strip the Royal family of its power and privileges, I wasn’t convinced they would be the guaranteed victors of that conflict with Queen Elizabeth II. King Charles hasn’t been King for very long, so a conflict with the Commons probably would favor the Commons at this point in time, but I’m not convinced the King could easily be run over either. The reason this remained hypothetical under the Queen and will probably remain so under the King is they know how to effectively wield power without attracting spotlights and given a choice want the spotlights pointed in a different direction than at them. Compare and contrast with the President of the United States where every possible move he could make is scrutinized and gamed out within an inch of its life before he can make it, and when the Executive team leading the country does something, the President wants his credit so he can leverage that in forthcoming elections both for his own re-election and to bolster the campaigns of members of his party; but taking credit—even opportunistically—also means you suffer the blame as well. Australia has good reasons to want to take a different approach though, and well, the King of Australia does live on the opposite end of the world, so picking up the Republican ball will probably be more straightforward for them should they choose to go down that route.