Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Monarchist or Republican?

16 replies to this topic
aceofhicks
  • aceofhicks

    Democratic Socialist

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#1

Posted 23 August 2013 - 02:14 AM

Which system do you believe in? A system that has an elected official represent the nation, or an unelected figurehead to represent the nation?

Personally, I'm a Constitutional Monarchist. I like the fact that my head of state is non-partisan, and only enacts laws that are approved by the people (via Parliament in my country).

I feel having a Monarch creates less animosity towards the head of state. For example, about half of Americans approve of Obama, about half dislike him; simply on party lines. With a Constitutional Monarch, your animosity is directed towards the law makers, not the head of state; who's role is to represent the entire populace..

Also, I simply like the history of the Canadian Crown.

nightwalker83
  • nightwalker83

    Don't mind me

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2004

#2

Posted 23 August 2013 - 02:21 AM

I'm for a republic (for Australia) not the American Republicans.

aceofhicks
  • aceofhicks

    Democratic Socialist

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#3

Posted 23 August 2013 - 03:01 AM

QUOTE (nightwalker83 @ Thursday, Aug 22 2013, 23:21)
I'm for a republic (for Australia) not the American Republicans.

Yes, BIG difference. I assume you are rather left leaning / a libertarian?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#4

Posted 23 August 2013 - 08:59 AM

QUOTE (aceofhicks @ Thursday, Aug 22 2013, 20:14)
Also, I simply like the history of the Canadian Crown.

lets be honest; that's all it really comes down to.

who wouldn't be in favor of a charming, campy, virtually-powerless, old monarchy that simply rakes in tourism revenue and hosts charity events?
the UK won't be shedding with this system any time soon. no more than the Dutch or any of the other modern constitutional monarchies in the West.

you'd probably be singing a different tune if your royal family had been a little more harsh to its people in the past.
because you're still essentially a republican. sure, it's nice that the monarch can be separate from the political parties themselves. but their existence is a pure formality in the scheme of things. they're more or less useless.

the freedoms that ordinary people like you and I enjoy nowadays are by and large a direct product of representative democracy.
specifically the abolition and dismantling of ancient monarchical and/or feudal power structures, then establishing civil society using the power structure of voting and civil rights.

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#5

Posted 23 August 2013 - 01:27 PM

I had to null my vote as I'm in favour of constitutional monarchies, which lie somewhere between the two vote choices. Countries like the UK right now have all of the hallmarks of a republic in reality as they are representative democracies -- but they just have a figurehead at the top of the system. In theory at least, because although our monarch can choose not to pass any legislation, they never would.

My views may change when the Queen dies because Prince Charles is a pretty awful person, but hopefully he won't be around for too long before William can take over.

aceofhicks
  • aceofhicks

    Democratic Socialist

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#6

Posted 23 August 2013 - 04:24 PM Edited by aceofhicks, 23 August 2013 - 04:56 PM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Aug 23 2013, 05:59)
QUOTE (aceofhicks @ Thursday, Aug 22 2013, 20:14)
Also, I simply like the history of the Canadian Crown.

lets be honest; that's all it really comes down to.

who wouldn't be in favor of a charming, campy, virtually-powerless, old monarchy that simply rakes in tourism revenue and hosts charity events?
the UK won't be shedding with this system any time soon. no more than the Dutch or any of the other modern constitutional monarchies in the West.

you'd probably be singing a different tune if your royal family had been a little more harsh to its people in the past.
because you're still essentially a republican. sure, it's nice that the monarch can be separate from the political parties themselves. but their existence is a pure formality in the scheme of things. they're more or less useless.

the freedoms that ordinary people like you and I enjoy nowadays are by and large a direct product of representative democracy.
specifically the abolition and dismantling of ancient monarchical and/or feudal power structures, then establishing civil society using the power structure of voting and civil rights.

You are correct. I think the the term is a "Crowned Republic". Which is basically what the Commonwealth Realms are.

But I do see the value in a non-partisan head of state. Even when compared to the Parliamentary systems of Germany and Israel; I like a Westminster style Monarch.

But on a similar note, a Huge reason why I support the Monarchy in Canada, is to keep my country different from the United States. To have something that's completely different, something that's against the core of the US. And that's one of the reasons why I'm a left wing Monarchist.

chapapote
  • chapapote

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2008

#7

Posted 30 August 2013 - 12:32 PM

So, what exactly the Queen does?

aceofhicks
  • aceofhicks

    Democratic Socialist

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#8

Posted 31 August 2013 - 03:21 AM

QUOTE (chapapote @ Friday, Aug 30 2013, 09:32)
So, what exactly the Queen does?

In Canada, almost nothing. She's the ceremonial figurehead of the country; the personal embodiment of the nation. Her representative (The Governor General) signs bills passed by Parliament into law. While the GG could veto a bill, he simply won't; it's a constitutional convention that once a bill is passed by the House of Commons, the Senate and GG will approve the bill.

That's why I like the Monarchy; it's a non-partisan head of state. I think Canada's first Prime Minister summed it up quite well.

QUOTE (Sir John A. MacDonald)
By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle—the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party—to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all.

chapapote
  • chapapote

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2008

#9

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:18 PM

Well, I must say I'm Republican, mostly because I'm from Spain. I don't know if news have reached your countries, but here the Crown has been involved in a lot of corruption-related scandals. Spanish press seems to have a silence pact around all dirty matters involving the Crown, and thus the royal family has been doing whatever they wanted for years. It's only recently that some things have been coming to light. For what I've heard, other royal families are more transparent.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#10

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:30 PM

Yeah, we need to keep royalty around for tourism reasons.

I mean, look what happened in France. Nobody has visited there in centuries, because once royalty was done away with there was literally nothing of interest there at all.

aceofhicks
  • aceofhicks

    Democratic Socialist

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#11

Posted 01 September 2013 - 06:10 PM

QUOTE (chapapote @ Saturday, Aug 31 2013, 10:18)
Well, I must say I'm Republican, mostly because I'm from Spain. I don't know if news have reached your countries, but here the Crown has been involved in a lot of corruption-related scandals. Spanish press seems to have a silence pact around all dirty matters involving the Crown, and thus the royal family has been doing whatever they wanted for years. It's only recently that some things have been coming to light. For what I've heard, other royal families are more transparent.

In that case, I can understand why you would be a republican. I only support my Monarchy because they're a neutral-positive force for Canada.

Tom Toole
  • Tom Toole

    getting better all the time

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2005

#12

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:43 AM

I think there's a few problems with the debate proposed.

First of all the situation of monarchy in our day is not merely whether or not but how much. Constitutional monarchy is not the only type of monarchy. I think we should be a bit more honest - the monarchy we are talking about it the UK/british one. And the debate there is not only of yes/no, moving to a republic, but the extent to which this "figurehead" has power at all, with the budget of the crown, the properties, and in a related subject the transformation of the chamber of lords into an elected body.

Secondly there's a third option missing. I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favor of Soviet-style republics, but I believe Monarchy representing feudalism and the English "revolution", Republic representing the bourgeois nature of the French Revolution, and finally the Communist Revolution happening in Russia/China representing the Soviet/Workers Republic.

I think this second point adds something because while the monarchy rules or continues to exist by "divine right", as head of the Anglican Church, and the republic is based in secular non-religious ideas of the enlightenment - with the Communists being against the classical, against the ideology of the past, and towards the creation of a new society to a greater extent (in a continuum though - the bourgeois republic is also the creation of a new society, with liberty and equality as values, and the enlightenment is also a rejection of the middle ages and it's religion).

(there was one comment regarding the spanish king, I regrettably do not know much about the modern spanish monarchy.)

I think Canada is a very strange example, I don't know too much history, but at one time they wanted not just a figurehead, they wanted the Monarchy to intervene and I think a kind of people's revolt had ended basically the british empire at home, so the queen was basically forced to say "I can't intervene" and it was a strange play, with the Canadians pleading "please rule us" and the Queen, saying "The middle ages have passed, the british empire has passed, I can no longer do this" and the Canadians being calmed by her presence.

KaRzY6
  • KaRzY6

    ♧ Sick Kunt ♤

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011

#13

Posted 02 September 2013 - 11:17 AM

I'm Australian, and I much prefer the monarchy. I would hate Australia to become a republic. Not sure what I don't want a republic for, I guess I just like our country's British heritage and the Queen as the head of state. It's not like the queen has a big political impact here, so I don't see any reason for change. I just like having that small connection with Britain still.

synchro_w
  • synchro_w

    LOSE THE PIGS!

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2009

#14

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:33 AM

QUOTE (aceofhicks @ Friday, Aug 23 2013, 03:01)
QUOTE (nightwalker83 @ Thursday, Aug 22 2013, 23:21)
I'm for a republic (for Australia) not the American Republicans.

Yes, BIG difference. I assume you are rather left leaning / a libertarian?

isn't this a cover for a shady ultra right wing group known within certain circles as the 'Nationalist democratic party'?

Bigs
  • Bigs

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2004

#15

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:28 AM

Americans will always be weary of monarchy for obvious reasons. The "rugged individualistic" attitude would never mesh with the idea of innate royalty. It just seems silly to most of us.

Now of course modern republics have their share of problems too. But personally I think it has less to do with the structure and more to do with media influence over a divisive, stubborn population.

If the individual(s) representing your nation aren't the ones whom govern, isn't that merely a facade?

aceofhicks
  • aceofhicks

    Democratic Socialist

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2011

#16

Posted 04 September 2013 - 03:20 PM

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Sunday, Sep 1 2013, 21:43)
I think Canada is a very strange example, I don't know too much history, but at one time they wanted not just a figurehead, they wanted the Monarchy to intervene and I think a kind of people's revolt had ended basically the british empire at home, so the queen was basically forced to say "I can't intervene" and it was a strange play, with the Canadians pleading "please rule us" and the Queen, saying "The middle ages have passed, the british empire has passed, I can no longer do this" and the Canadians being calmed by her presence.

That's not quite what happened. What did happened, is that the British got tired of paying our bills. They especially didn't like paying for our defence.

The colonists wanted their own Parliament, and the British wanted to stop paying for the Canadian Colonies. So colonial leaders from three of the British Colonies in North America (Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick) lobbied London for their own country. The British Parliament agreed to the proposal. The three Colonies then joined to form the "Dominion of Canada"

Keep in mind, while the Founders of Canada wanted their own country, they were still loyal to the British Crown; they believed in the Empire and wanted to be a part of it. That's why Canada still has a Monarchy, and why we got our independence through negotiations, and not bloodshed.

And only once has the Crown gone against the wishes of Parliament.


QUOTE (Bigs @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 22:28)

If the individual(s) representing your nation aren't the ones whom govern, isn't that merely a facade?

Kind of. I mean, our Head of Government (the Prime Minister) has control of the Cabinet, can call an election, can appointed people to the upper house, can shut down parliament for a break. He has real power, and his party was elected by the people.

Our Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II) is simply a ceremonial figurehead. She could veto bills, but ever since the Acts of Settlement in 1701, there's a Constitutional Convention that goes against it.

I mean, our REAL leader is the Prime Minister.

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#17

Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:46 PM

I think on moral (or philosophical?) grounds, a monarchy is indefensible. It elevates an individual to permanent prominence on the basis of their birth, which we can probably all agree is a completely outdated and utterly irrelevant concept in a modern world, particularly one that prizes such notions of equality of opportunity or egalitarianism.

 

However, a constitutional monarch stays in this elevated position to operate as a figurehead, theoretically impartial and there to function as a constitutional mechanism, more than anything. It can be said this is essentially harmless, both theoretically and as a practical thing, e.g. in the United Kingdom, democracy is hardly compromised by this. So I can tolerate the concept of a constitutional monarch in the modern day, as something that isn't corrosive to good government, nor to democracy.

 

But on ideological grounds, I would be staunchly Republican. In that sense, if I were forming my own country, it would be a Republic - on moral grounds, a government and state that draws its authority from the people, in an indirect fashion, would appeal to me as both morally and practically applicable to the modern day.

 

I don't seek to erase the remnants of Medieval leadership, blood lines and dynastic echoes, but I certainly wouldn't want to propagate it, nor would I agree with any of its core principles. It can remain, because it is a shadow of its former self.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users