5 ms·

I find the idea that (at least part of) the government identity is tied the "personal authority" of the ruler a bit bizarre ― even though I grew up under an abs

I find the idea that (at least part of) the government identity is tied the "personal authority" of the ruler a bit bizarre ― even though I grew up under an absolute dictatorial regime. Even during said dictatorship, the absolute ruler avoided to tie anything to his personal identity, or even that of the ruling party; even though the lines between party and state were blurred elsewhere. So to see that this is happening in one of the world oldest democracies never ceased to astonish me.

whatshisface 3y ago
I think there's a bit in Yes, Minister about how the more you're doing something in government the less you say about it, and the less you're doing the more you say.
- adamwintle 3y ago
  What does that mean? Are you suggesting that active government work is often done quietly, while inactivity can lead to more public discussion to give the appearance of action?
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    If you eat when you're hungry, eating and being hungry aren't the opposite of each other.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
My dream is that this century we will see the end to the British monarchy. These old symbols of rule must see an end if we hope to continue humanity’s rule towards more democratic rule. (I say this knowing full well that “democracy” is hardly what we make of it even in the most famous democracies like the USA, and we still have so much work to do.)
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I hope the British monarchy (and others like the Japanese monarchy) continue for time immemorial. Monarchs these days are (fortunately) more benevolent than ye olde days, and are looking to become bastions of calm and sanity in an era when democracy (FSVO democracy) keeps roiling shit up. I say that as an American too, long live the King.
  - tgma 3y ago
    Indeed. The track record of monarchies turned republic is not great. Iran comes to mind.
    - GordonS 3y ago
      Not sure if Iran is the best example; the US, UK and Israel have made sure that Iran hasn't exactly had a "fair go" at it.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
      Weird hostility aside, monarchy is highly unlikely in the US at this time, because the American tradition has been steeped in myths hostile to the very idea (curious, perhaps, given that the US has what is in effect an imperial presidency). We would need to witness a deep shift in American sensibilities before monarchy could be embraced. Perhaps as a compromise or a transition we could reform the presidency such that it becomes a position held for life (with preferential voting to make it more nimble to make up for the lack of term churn). The prospect of such a long reign would rule out short-sighted careerists who would tire of the burden of office (despite being the highest office in the State, at some point, the prestige-to-burden ratio becomes unappetizing for such people). And given the length of such a term in office, the choice of candidate is likely to become more bland, as no party wants to live under a diehard member of the other party. This has its drawbacks, but it could add stability that would provide an environment in which normality could be fostered.
gerdesj 3y ago
"world oldest democracies" - Demos kratos (people's doings/things - old Greek) By definition, our democracy is not that old. When the old Greeks were toying with funky governmental regimes, Britons lived in tribal/family units, with some nascent petty kingdoms. The UK is a bit odd, even compared to the rest of the world! There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and around 10 other monarchies have the same King Charles. He is also the senior person for several other territories such as the Isle of Man, Channel Isles and others. Each of those have some pretty impressive titles for him to hold. The role of "constitutional monarch" here isn't precisely defined but it is based on precedent which basically means if it worked before and no one complained too much then that's the way forward. Our legal system largely works like that too but with a bit more introspection. The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is! Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. That influence is documented/reported on.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Holding many titles in itself isn't strange, it's actually normal. Yes, that includes holding multiple King titles. If a noble holds multiple titles of the same rank, the most prestigious of them (in this case King of the United Kingdom) is the one preferred for general use. >Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. The idea is that the King is granted the authority to govern from God, and the King's government aids him in putting that authority into practice. Remember that the King of the United Kingdom is also the leader ("Supreme Governor") of the Church of England, and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. That is all to signify the King is a representative of God, acting in God's stead because God is busy with godly matters I suppose.
  - eru 3y ago
chmod775 3y ago
The UK is a "(democratic) parliamentary constitutional monarchy", which makes it a democracy, but importantly it's still a monarchy as well. Being one thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other, even if one must limit the other.
- eru 3y ago
  The comment you replied to was aware of this. Most of the time, the laws and bureaucracy in the UK refers to 'The Crown' instead of to the king or queen personally. And ahmedfromtunis expressed surprise that this is not universal (but only 'most of the time').
lozenge 3y ago
Well, over the last hundred years we've gone from "the divine right of the King to rule his subjects" to "the Monarchy brings in money by attracting tourists to the UK". Who knows where we'll be in another hundred years.
- defrost 3y ago
  Hundred years? Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. Looks like you're a tad out of date there. A hundred years ago King George V inherited the throne at a politically turbulent time, with the House of Lords exerting pressure to bend the King to their ends and grant a dissolution .. very much the political tail wagging the King dog rather than vice versa.
- pja 3y ago
  Quite apart from Magna Carta, the outcome of the Civil War determined very effectively whether the British Monarch had divine right to rule. In the negative.
  - com 3y ago
    With a regular reminder to the reigning monarch just outside the House of Commons in Westminster, a statue of Oliver Cromwell. Apart from the awful, awful acts that he commissioned against the people of Ireland, he also ensured that the concept of parliamentary supremacy against a sitting king that ignored or agitated against it, was demonstrated in a fairly direct way, the execution of King Charles I (there’s a statue of Charles I across the way, just to make sure you don’t miss the message)
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  There is more to the British monarchy than tourism, but even so, it is worth noting (emphasis mine): 'This is the doctrine of "the divine right of kings". According to it, in its rigour, in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him, to such as he may select for the time being to share his power. This "divine right of kings" (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. At the Reformation it assumed a form exceedingly hostile to Catholicism, monarchs like Henry VIII, and James I, of England, claiming the fullness of spiritual as well as of civil authority, and this in such inalienable possession that no jot or tittle of prerogative could ever pass away from the Crown. [...] Suárez argued against James I that spiritual authority is not vested in the Crown, and that even civil authority is not the immediate gift of God to the king, but is given by God to the people collectively, and by them bestowed on the monarch, according to the theory of the Roman lawyers above mentioned, and according to Aristotle and St. Thomas.' [0] [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm
KineticLensman 3y ago
> I find the idea that (at least part of) the government identity is tied the "personal authority" of the ruler a bit bizarre Our semi-informal UK constitution distinguishes between 'the Crown' (the post) and 'the Monarch' (the individual who currently occupies that post). The parliamentary role is defined in terms of the Crown, not the specific Monarch. This is why we can have an immediate transition of power when the Monarch dies, following our rules of succession.

whatshisface 3y ago

I think there's a bit in Yes, Minister about how the more you're doing something in government the less you say about it, and the less you're doing the more you say.

adamwintle 3y ago
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that active government work is often done quietly, while inactivity can lead to more public discussion to give the appearance of action?
- whatshisface 3y ago
  If you eat when you're hungry, eating and being hungry aren't the opposite of each other.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

My dream is that this century we will see the end to the British monarchy. These old symbols of rule must see an end if we hope to continue humanity’s rule towards more democratic rule. (I say this knowing full well that “democracy” is hardly what we make of it even in the most famous democracies like the USA, and we still have so much work to do.)

Dalewyn 3y ago
I hope the British monarchy (and others like the Japanese monarchy) continue for time immemorial. Monarchs these days are (fortunately) more benevolent than ye olde days, and are looking to become bastions of calm and sanity in an era when democracy (FSVO democracy) keeps roiling shit up. I say that as an American too, long live the King.
- tgma 3y ago
  Indeed. The track record of monarchies turned republic is not great. Iran comes to mind.
  - GordonS 3y ago
    Not sure if Iran is the best example; the US, UK and Israel have made sure that Iran hasn't exactly had a "fair go" at it.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    Weird hostility aside, monarchy is highly unlikely in the US at this time, because the American tradition has been steeped in myths hostile to the very idea (curious, perhaps, given that the US has what is in effect an imperial presidency). We would need to witness a deep shift in American sensibilities before monarchy could be embraced. Perhaps as a compromise or a transition we could reform the presidency such that it becomes a position held for life (with preferential voting to make it more nimble to make up for the lack of term churn). The prospect of such a long reign would rule out short-sighted careerists who would tire of the burden of office (despite being the highest office in the State, at some point, the prestige-to-burden ratio becomes unappetizing for such people). And given the length of such a term in office, the choice of candidate is likely to become more bland, as no party wants to live under a diehard member of the other party. This has its drawbacks, but it could add stability that would provide an environment in which normality could be fostered.

gerdesj 3y ago

"world oldest democracies" - Demos kratos (people's doings/things - old Greek) By definition, our democracy is not that old. When the old Greeks were toying with funky governmental regimes, Britons lived in tribal/family units, with some nascent petty kingdoms. The UK is a bit odd, even compared to the rest of the world! There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and around 10 other monarchies have the same King Charles. He is also the senior person for several other territories such as the Isle of Man, Channel Isles and others. Each of those have some pretty impressive titles for him to hold. The role of "constitutional monarch" here isn't precisely defined but it is based on precedent which basically means if it worked before and no one complained too much then that's the way forward. Our legal system largely works like that too but with a bit more introspection. The King does have a form of absolute power but only on the understanding that it is never used. Its not quite that simple but it is! Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. That influence is documented/reported on.

Dalewyn 3y ago
>There are several European monarchies still running but ours is a bit madder than the others. For starters, our monarch is many monarchs. Holding many titles in itself isn't strange, it's actually normal. Yes, that includes holding multiple King titles. If a noble holds multiple titles of the same rank, the most prestigious of them (in this case King of the United Kingdom) is the one preferred for general use. >Our King isn't an old school tyrant (Greek thing again) nor a dictator. He really acts as another governor - he has influence with the elected government. The idea is that the King is granted the authority to govern from God, and the King's government aids him in putting that authority into practice. Remember that the King of the United Kingdom is also the leader ("Supreme Governor") of the Church of England, and elsewhere kings are usually coronated by the Pope of the Catholic Church. That is all to signify the King is a representative of God, acting in God's stead because God is busy with godly matters I suppose.
- eru 3y ago

chmod775 3y ago

The UK is a "(democratic) parliamentary constitutional monarchy", which makes it a democracy, but importantly it's still a monarchy as well. Being one thing doesn't necessarily exclude the other, even if one must limit the other.

eru 3y ago
The comment you replied to was aware of this. Most of the time, the laws and bureaucracy in the UK refers to 'The Crown' instead of to the king or queen personally. And ahmedfromtunis expressed surprise that this is not universal (but only 'most of the time').

lozenge 3y ago

Well, over the last hundred years we've gone from "the divine right of the King to rule his subjects" to "the Monarchy brings in money by attracting tourists to the UK". Who knows where we'll be in another hundred years.

defrost 3y ago
Hundred years? Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. Looks like you're a tad out of date there. A hundred years ago King George V inherited the throne at a politically turbulent time, with the House of Lords exerting pressure to bend the King to their ends and grant a dissolution .. very much the political tail wagging the King dog rather than vice versa.
pja 3y ago
Quite apart from Magna Carta, the outcome of the Civil War determined very effectively whether the British Monarch had divine right to rule. In the negative.
- com 3y ago
  With a regular reminder to the reigning monarch just outside the House of Commons in Westminster, a statue of Oliver Cromwell. Apart from the awful, awful acts that he commissioned against the people of Ireland, he also ensured that the concept of parliamentary supremacy against a sitting king that ignored or agitated against it, was demonstrated in a fairly direct way, the execution of King Charles I (there’s a statue of Charles I across the way, just to make sure you don’t miss the message)
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
There is more to the British monarchy than tourism, but even so, it is worth noting (emphasis mine): 'This is the doctrine of "the divine right of kings". According to it, in its rigour, in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him, to such as he may select for the time being to share his power. This "divine right of kings" (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. At the Reformation it assumed a form exceedingly hostile to Catholicism, monarchs like Henry VIII, and James I, of England, claiming the fullness of spiritual as well as of civil authority, and this in such inalienable possession that no jot or tittle of prerogative could ever pass away from the Crown. [...] Suárez argued against James I that spiritual authority is not vested in the Crown, and that even civil authority is not the immediate gift of God to the king, but is given by God to the people collectively, and by them bestowed on the monarch, according to the theory of the Roman lawyers above mentioned, and according to Aristotle and St. Thomas.' [0] [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm

KineticLensman 3y ago

> I find the idea that (at least part of) the government identity is tied the "personal authority" of the ruler a bit bizarre Our semi-informal UK constitution distinguishes between 'the Crown' (the post) and 'the Monarch' (the individual who currently occupies that post). The parliamentary role is defined in terms of the Crown, not the specific Monarch. This is why we can have an immediate transition of power when the Monarch dies, following our rules of succession.