3 ms·

Survivorship bias. Most monarchies were abolished, some in rather drastic ways, throughout the early modern and modern era. The UK/Commonwealth is just a lucky

Survivorship bias. Most monarchies were abolished, some in rather drastic ways, throughout the early modern and modern era. The UK/Commonwealth is just a lucky exception and now there's no strong impetus to abolish the monarchy that no longer plays a significant role in the day-to-day politics of these nations.

gizajob 3y ago
I wouldn’t really say it was lucky - the British fought a civil war to abolish it and once they tried the alternative at the time, a monarchy with reduced power seemed to be a better option than a more presidential system (a Lord Protector) and so it was re-established. The “luck” you talk about is a form of extremely long-term stability in governance that has persevered in Britain despite alternative options, due to the system being somewhat well balanced and evolved over time.
- ssnistfajen 3y ago
  The fact that Britain's foray into republicanism was short-lived was precisely because of luck and pure chance - they ended up with an controversial dictator on the first attempt instead of someone like George Washington. Britain also had the luck of moving away from absolute monarchy much earlier due to the accession of George I who was originally very distant in the line of succession. During his reign the monarch's power was gradually vested onto ministers, of which Robert Walpole is largely agreed to be the first "prime minister" of Britain, a position that is still legally undefined to this day precisely because of how it came to be in the first place.
  - gizajob 3y ago
    How was the system George Washington designed any better, and how do the results of it in the present day turn out better than the same "luck"? Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.
    - ssnistfajen 3y ago
      Because the UK's constitutional monarchy is very much unique in the sense that most aspects of it are undefined by written law. That alone is evidence of survivorship bias. Most other countries with stable political systems today either transitioned to a more organized constitutional monarchy or republic. Without ambiguous Swords of Damocles like the royal prerogative.
      - gizajob 3y ago
        Yeah but in comparison the political systems of most other countries are all pretty novel, even experimental, and all somehow unique, even if they're analogous. They're all pretty ad hoc, and most have only existed for a fairly short period compared to the British system. Every country is an evolving landscape politically and legislatively. I also wouldn't say "most" aspects of monarchy aren't covered by written law, perhaps only codified rather than strictly planned but they're not undefined. Plus it's a common law system, and so not really comparable to systems of public law.
actionfromafar 3y ago
Minor, but not insignificant.

gizajob 3y ago

I wouldn’t really say it was lucky - the British fought a civil war to abolish it and once they tried the alternative at the time, a monarchy with reduced power seemed to be a better option than a more presidential system (a Lord Protector) and so it was re-established. The “luck” you talk about is a form of extremely long-term stability in governance that has persevered in Britain despite alternative options, due to the system being somewhat well balanced and evolved over time.

ssnistfajen 3y ago
The fact that Britain's foray into republicanism was short-lived was precisely because of luck and pure chance - they ended up with an controversial dictator on the first attempt instead of someone like George Washington. Britain also had the luck of moving away from absolute monarchy much earlier due to the accession of George I who was originally very distant in the line of succession. During his reign the monarch's power was gradually vested onto ministers, of which Robert Walpole is largely agreed to be the first "prime minister" of Britain, a position that is still legally undefined to this day precisely because of how it came to be in the first place.
- gizajob 3y ago
  How was the system George Washington designed any better, and how do the results of it in the present day turn out better than the same "luck"? Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.
  - ssnistfajen 3y ago
    Because the UK's constitutional monarchy is very much unique in the sense that most aspects of it are undefined by written law. That alone is evidence of survivorship bias. Most other countries with stable political systems today either transitioned to a more organized constitutional monarchy or republic. Without ambiguous Swords of Damocles like the royal prerogative.
    - gizajob 3y ago
      Yeah but in comparison the political systems of most other countries are all pretty novel, even experimental, and all somehow unique, even if they're analogous. They're all pretty ad hoc, and most have only existed for a fairly short period compared to the British system. Every country is an evolving landscape politically and legislatively. I also wouldn't say "most" aspects of monarchy aren't covered by written law, perhaps only codified rather than strictly planned but they're not undefined. Plus it's a common law system, and so not really comparable to systems of public law.

actionfromafar 3y ago

Minor, but not insignificant.