Nice goal shift.
The way I was taught to read English the topic of the OP is “Are monarchs part of a democratic system?”
Which they patently are.
You only posted half of it.
What I wrote in the OP was:
In other words, I am asking if people think it’s A or B.
People are free to argue that a hereditary monarch is democratic. I personally feel that they’re going to have a hard time with that, which explains some of the responses.
People are also free to argue that a hereditary monarch is non-democratic, even though they may exist in a political system which is generally democratic. This is the position I hold. I’ve been pretty open about that.
Do you truly believe that this is comparing apples to apples? Are there no significant differences between the role of an American president and a monarch in a constitutional monarchy?
Suppose that Nigel Farage is the next UK PM. Is there a possibility that there is some subtle way in which the existence of Charles III slightly reduces the chances of Farage acting in a an anti-democratic manner? I define democracy broadly to include the rule of law and free expression.
One possible way is that Farage is supposed to weekly brief the King, although maybe Farage will refuse to meet.
Another way to ask it: Suppose Reform UK abolished the monarchy, replacing it with an elected president. Wouldn’t this increase the power of anti-democratic forces, assuming the president is from Reform UK?
Once again, half of the post was left out.
Here’s the original:
UDS1 compared the British monarch to the American president. I was just responding to that.
Both men are the heads of state of their respective countries. There are, of course, substantial differences in what powers they have.
But the topic of the thread is democracy. So let me repeat the question; do you feel the British monarchy is more democratic than the American presidency?
Right now, that seems pretty unarguably to be the case, since the democratic constraints on the arbitrary exercise of the king’s powers in the UK are clearly more effective than the democratic constraints on the arbitrary exercise of the president’s powers in the US.
Well your argument would deem that the only acceptable response is:
POTUS is voted. Monarch is not.
Ergo USA is a democracy. UK is not.
USA! USA! USA!
If you want an answer in context rather than gratification then it’s necessary to assess the whole cake, not just the chocolate sprinkles on top.
A hereditary monarchy is just as integral key in a functioning democracy as a president elected by the majority of an Electoral College based on a winner takes all tally of electors disproportionately allocated to states from the votes of much less than half of the eligible voting population.
Head of State of a constitutional monarchy doesn’t personally command and interfere in the distribution of food, medicine, social services and the military in the way any tin pot authoritarian does to sate their ego, patronage/grift and agenda for personal revenge.
I’ve lost count of the number of times in decades past this MAGA lite argument comes up that the US is inherently star spangley & apple pie superior because you elect the dog catchers or whatever whilst them furrin demosocially backward maroons would appoint them. The counter argument being that the primary criteria for selecting a dogcatcher should be their ability to catch dogs, not their party affiliation.
Thanks for Eurosplaining my own history to me
Yep. Wasting my time. Good luck to everyone else, though.
Edit to add: And for the record, my country of Luxembourg has an unelected hereditary monarch with zero political powers, and I absolutely believe that Luxembourg’s democracy is a thousand percent more functional and healthy, representing the will of the people, than whatever the fuck is happening in the United States.
Not tough at all. Of course they could. There’s no law against it - any Parliament can undo any act of its predecessors. Whether or how it might be politically feasible is another matter.
Several points:
First.
Let’s ignore the apples to oranges part and:
Move the goal posts much? Constitutional monarchies must now be more democratic than America to count?
Whatever.
I’m not going to respond to the moving goalposts.
Second point:
My bolding.
No. Simply no. This is not a valid argument.
[Civics 101]
POTUS wears two hats, the head of state and the head of the executive branch of the government.
Constitutional monarchs wear only wear one hat, the head of state. (Granted, the hats some of the heads of states get to wear are waaaaay cooler).
In constitutional monarchies, the Prime Minister wears the hat of the chief executive of the country.
When the president of the United States comes to Japan, they have two meetings. First, they sit down with the PM and fight about trade, talk about bilateral agreements, etc. They negotiate. They do government stuff.
Why do they do this? Because they are both elected (directly or indirectly) as the chief executives of their countries.
Later, POTUS attends a state dinner with the Emperor. They talk about something. What do they talk about? Who cares? The negotiate nothing. They make no agreements that affect the citizens of their countries. And why? Because the Emperor has no power to rule. He’s got a symbolic ceremonial role. That’s all.
The Emperor cannot unilaterally change governments. He has a ceremonial role, but he is bound to follow the will of the people. If the voters vote out the idiots, he can’t override the will of the people. He must appoint the person the Diet selects. He does not govern.
[/civics 101]
Who cares if one person in the room got their role because it is a small function that comes along with the much more important role as the head of the executive branch of their government, and the other one got his role because he was born into it?
Talking again about Japan, Congratulations!!! You found a teeny, tiny part that isn’t fully democratic!! The completely invalidates the rest of the entire system making it non-democratic because of a symbolic role with no political power.
Got it.
Or if speaking generally, they can be.
The constitutional monarch her/himself is not a democratic entity, but they are embedded in the democratic system and their role and function is dictated by it.
I’m glad at least one person understands the topic.
that wasn’t the question you asked in your OP.
You asked what BritsIsh people thought. Which other people and I have answered about other constitutional monarchies.
But you aren’t really interested in seeing what they feel about their systems of government, rather you are more interested in showing them how they are wrong.
Carry on
Speaking specifically, can you cite an example of a modern constitutional monarch who is not?
I’ll accept that some of the early attempts of a model of governance to democratise political power independent of a monarch have a nasty tendency of devolving into authoritarianism.
Or are we pushing the timeline back to Louis XIV?
Notice though there was no “modern constitutional” modifier in the topline topic question. We needed to add that conditional (and the OP sort of implicitly recognizes that in the post text) so the monarchy becomes in effect an instrument of the democratic polity.
I felt this was a very non-controversial topic and I’ll admit I have been caught off guard by the heat that this thread has generated. I feel there is some misunderstanding at work here and people think I have some hidden agenda.
Could somebody explain what it is you think I’m saying?
No hidden agenda.
Just another iteration of MAGA exceptionalism.
“Stop complaining about 45/47. Because he was elected and your Head of State wasn’t. So American governance is superior and your governance lacks legitimacy.”
What’s coming across to me, at any rate, is that
- people are saying “in considering whether a particular office is democratic or not, you need to consider a lot more than how the office-holder is selected”; and
- you don’t seem to be hearing this.
Bear in mind that the orginal comparison was not between the British monarch and the US President, but between the British monarch and the German Fuhrer.
Hitler became Chancellor constitutionally, at the invitation of President Hindenburg, having won more votes, and more seats, than any other party at the preceding Reichstag election. And, when Hindenburg died, the office of Chancellor and the office of President were combined, a measure ratified by a large majority in a referendum. So in terms of how Hilter came to be Fuhrer, it all looks very democratic.
And yet, nobody in 1935 felt that the pageantry of Nuremburg was a celebration or affirmation of democracy. The UK’s silver jubilees celebrations and later coronation celebrations were seen in that way.
Which just makes the point; the mode by which an officeholder is selected is comparatively unimportant; if we’re asking ourselves whether this office is a democratic element of the constitution, the pertinent questions are more like — What are the powers and functions of this office? Do they enjoy democratic legitimacy? Are they constrained by the rule of law, and by democratic norms? Are they exercised in a democratic way? Can the way in which the powers are exercised be scrutinised and held to account democratically?
And — it’s a long thread, and my apologies if I have missed something — but you don’t seem to have any response to this except to point out again that the monarch is not elected. Yes, we know. Our point all along has been that this particular characteristic of the office — how the incumbent is chosen — is not the all-or-nothing for democracy that you seem to think, and you’re not really making any effort to explain why you think that.
(Of course, there’s also the fact that a Charles III/Trump comparison came up, and anything with Trump in it always becomes polarised. But it is relevant, because Trump will now always be the Awful Example to illustrate that electing a country’s president is no guarantee that the country will have a democratic presidency.)
It’s because you seem to have some point you’re trying to make, and you are trying to get us to accept and acknowlege the first step in pursuing that point — but what’s being argued is neither significant nor interesting. If you take any form of democracy in practice, and you deliberately strip away all the democratic elements, then by definition what remains is not democratic. This is a semantic argument, and it’s trivial. Any experienced online debater will recognize this tactic, and it generates suspicion that the point must be conceded for some further reason.