I just know, two facts. Denmark is clearly one of the most liberal countries, culturally and politically, in the world. Here is the Wikipedia article. I’m not going to read the whole article for you or to you. But I think you’ll agree it shows that (look especially on the sections titled Culture and Human Rights). But it is also a constitutional monarchy. To me the two would seem to conflict. So do they?
I realize the monarch clearly has little or few powers. But still, you have to admit a clear conflict of interest. Why, I mean, haven’t they declared themselves a republic now?
Another thing in the Wikipedia article that I found odd and perhaps ironic: Christianity is the dominant religion in Denmark. In January 2020, 74.3%[189] of the population of Denmark were members of the Church of Denmark (Den Danske Folkekirke), the officially established church. The US constitution forbids an establishment of religion. How could, if nothing else, a so culturally liberal country like Denmark at the same time have no problem with it? I mean, some people in the US, who even call themselves conservative, are proud of our separation of church and state. This one frankly has me even more confused.
Also, historically monarchies have been considered obstacles to things like democracy, and even freedom. Furthermore, royal families typically are wealthy. How do you explain that, even in a democratic socialism state?
Almost every country is proud of its cultural history and heritage. And for most modern liberal monarchies, the main purpose of the monarchy is to represent that cultural history and heritage, usually as an embodiment of the idea.
I’m sure Queen Margrethe II is a fine woman and an excellent grandmother. I’m equally sure that Denmark has hundreds of thousands of excellent and fine grandmothers. What sets her apart is that she has a duty to represent Danish heritage and values. So long as she and her heirs do so, the monarchy will be maintained. It has almost nothing to do with how liberal Denmark’s political policies are.
I think these are rather interesting questions.
On a broader level, we’re talking about things that distinguish European cultures. They tend to have a long history, with a more-or-less established culture (language, etc.) and religion in place over a long period of time. So, you get the retention of emotionally resonant, community-cohering institutions, like monarchies (at least on paper) and state-affiliated churches.
But, for many reasons, including a head start on industry (fueled in great part by colonial exploitation abroad, including slavery) and thus wealth and thus the leisure time to philosophize about the Rights of Man, and to eventually play soccer and smoke weed and produce great art and literature and complex, beautiful music…
…you get liberal/progressive cultures, and semi-socialized economies…
Long story short: you have people who can afford to be progressive and well educated (and appreciative of other cultures, since they’re close by), but who cling to a few things from their deep, pre-Enlightenment histories. This is bound to lead to contradictions, like democratic governments holding the power, but monarchs as symbols or heads of state; and, less separation of church and state than the US has, yet many more open atheists (and fewer actual churchgoers) than in the US.
You might instead ask “why are so
many Americans so religious, despite their lack of a state-sponsored religion?” My high school social studies teacher explained it’s because association with the government is the kiss of death for many — “I considered joining a church, but then I found out it’s officially tied to our damned government, so forget it!”
The monarchs are mostly a holdover from earlier eras, and are essentially powerless / symbolic in most Western countries. The important part is the way the legislative, executive and judicial powers are organised, and there are several ways to do that. Can you point to a republic that is obviously working better ? And is it working better because it doesn’t have a symbolic monarch, or because of that other stuff ?
In the western monarchies, the king/queen is head of state, but not head of government.
It’s an important difference. The US has one person whose both – the president – so Americans don’t see it. But the head of state is the one who handles ceremonial duties, like opening a new park. They have no political power, but allow the head of government to concentrate on governing instead of dealing with ceremony.
Boris Johnson, may he rot in hell, is a lying populist bastard. He is also, however, a socially-liberal libertarian who is not a practising Christian, believes in tackling climate change and was walking in London Pride parades wearing a pink stetson over ten years ago. Try again.
It’s a very close parallel to the US, initially a shiny new model of democracy with forward thinking statesmen forging a compromise constitution they thought would be amended as needed, just as they did 12 times in the first decade+, turning into a morass of conservatism shackled by veneration of those statesmen as The Founding Fathers and the compromise constitution and those initial amendments as a holy text.
Replacing the royals with a president (or whatever) has always seemed like an unnecessary step to most* and a step that would diminish the nation to many. And social democracies allow some people to be rich, few people want complete equality of wealth.
*A fraction that has likely increased in the last 5 years. (I can’t find systematic statistics on the question. At least not for Norway.)
What ‘democratic socialism states’ are we talking about? Most western European countries are liberal democracies, with some elements of socialism, but they are not socialist. People are allowed to make money.
I live in a fairly liberal democracy, and yet we have the following monarchs:
The AmaXhosa (Eastern Cape) King Zwelonke Sigcawu
The AmaZulu (KwaZulu-Natal) King Misuzulu Zwelithini
The AbaThembu (Eastern Cape) King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo
The VhaVenda (Limpopo) King Toni Mphephu Ramabulana
The AmaNdebele (Mpumalanga) King Makhosonke Enoch Mabena
The AmaMpondo (Eastern Cape) King Zanozuko Tyelovuyo Sigcau
The Bapedi ba Maroteng (Limpopo) King Thulare Victor Thulare
Your definition of socialism is very different from mine.
You imply socialism is some sort of Communism, whereas I see it as a democracy where we have e.g. Universal Health Care.
My definition is that property and the means of production are held in common rather than private, with workers involved in the management of that production - that’s not true in most western democracies. Having social services funded by taxes like universal health care doesn’t make a country ‘socialist’. That would mean every country with a state funded school system was socialist.
The UK is one of the only countries in the world that has true universal health care. I doubt anyone would call us a socialist country. As I said upthread, many European countries have elements of socialism (eg France has just nationalised their main domestic energy supplier), but most are also pretty capitalist.
?
? (I know he’s out, but just recently. Consider that.