Personally I wouldn’t swap Trump for any member of our royal family. Not even Prince Andrew. And last time we had a King who was even a fraction as bad as Trump (1938), he was removed with far less difficulty than you’re having.
It’s not democratic, but so what? The purpose of democracy is to secure good governance, it’s not an end in itself, and fetishising it even when it fails is ridiculous. That said, if we ever get a monarch lik Edward VIII again, and they don’t willingly leave, I would be supporting the abolition of the monarchy. Hopefully to be replaced by another apolitical Head of State of some sort.
“Here lies our sovereign Lord, the King,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.”
John Wilmot, Earl of Richmond to Charles II c1670.
Charles II in reply;
“The words are mine, the actions are those of my ministers”
Who said I was talking about england? I was talking about government.
Bruce Buena de Mesquita writes about game theory as it relates to politics, and about how to achieve ones goals (to obtain and stay in power, which are the root goals of politicians) one must find those who have the ability to help you obtain and keep power, and keep them happy under your rule.
In a democracy this means keeping 51% of the voters happy. In a dictatorship this means keeping the secret police and military leaders happy. Basically anyone who can organize a coup in a monarchy either has to be bribed or terrorized. Or both (usually both). But the public can just be terrorized with the secret police.
So in a monarchy, what incentive does the king/queen have to look out for the well being of the citizens? Maybe they’ll be a good person who genuinely cares about their nation and people. But keep in mind these people have been told since birth that they are godlike, and that right and wrong are beneath them. This mentality of hoping the dictator cares about the people didn’t work in North Korea where we’d had 3 generations of evil sociopaths in charge now.
Politicians will do what it takes to gain and keep power. In a democracy this includes winning enough votes and you win enough votes by doing things like getting your suppoters out to vote, preventing your opponents from voting, motivating your supporters with carrots (giveaways, good policies) and sticks (fear of what the other side will do).
My point about Kenya still stands. Imagine tomorrow that the UK and Kenya become one nation, and all Kenyans obtain full voting status. Now every Kenyan can vote in UK elections. What do you think happens to politics there? Politicians in the UK go from not giving a shit about the problems in Kenya to making them a top priority. Because now they know to get what they want (power) they have to give the people who determine whether they have power or not (voters) what they want.
In a monarchy you make sure the generals, secret police and a few top bureaucrats are bribed (but also afraid of each other) and you terrorize everyone else to stay in power.
You guys are discussing monarchy as a cosmetic throwback to olden times. Which yes is different than an actual monarchy.
Modern monarchies that are just for show in modern democracies are one thing, but real monarchies are ruled with no incentive to show concern for the public’s well being.
Except the question posed by the OP specifically mentions the UK monarchy, Wesley. If you don’t want to address his question, so be it, but by stating that the UK isn’t a real monarchy, you’re changing the point of the discussion in this thread.
I think a monarchy goes well with parliamentary-style governments. I think Presidential-style governments do not mix well with a Prime Minister style system because of the two kinds, the mixed one where the elected President and the Prime Minister both have a lot of power results in a lot of power struggles, and the one where the President does not have much power, the President is not as respected on the world stage as s/he would be if s/he were monarch.
Conversely, I’m not sure if a monarchy would detract from a strong elected Presidency, as there would not be a power struggle. It might be a benefit if their role were formalized, becoming like a permanent member of the Cabinet and requiring as a condition of the job for them and their heirs to be up to date on governmental workings. It might provide stability and perspective to new presidents and cabinets.
I used to be a card-carrying republican. I’m a proud monarchist now. I don’t think anything would really be improved by becoming a republic. Certainly many monarchies are quite generous social monarchies like Scandinavian kingdoms and the Netherlands. Not that monarchy = fairer society of course, but that there is no correlation that republic = fairer society either.
In fact I’d sometimes be inclined to say monarchy can help reconcile conservatives to incremental change, which republics can degenerate to party political identity.
As for meritocracy, election of the president isn’t meritocratic either, it’s merely a popularity contest, and I think we can all agree elections aren’t producing the best politicians we could have right now. On the contrary a monarchy is trained from a very young age making them extremely well informed, and I wonder if a touch of familial concern and the weight of history is an incentive to try to do it right.
Certainly at least the UK has been fortunate with its royals for the past century at least.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And that “meritocracy” is an unalloyed good. The term was coined as a warning against the potential for arrogance, entitlement and self-replicating exclusion as a new ruling class, among those who think they reach the top entirely on their own merits, when other factors play into it just as much.
My take on it, is that a very large proportion of people seem to really want a monarch: Even in the supposedly-democratic US, out of 45 Presidents, we’ve had two sons of previous Presidents and one grandson, plus a great many lesser offices filled by relatives and “noble families”. And if you’re going to be having people pushing for a monarchy anyway, better to do it in a controlled way that doesn’t lead to any power, than having it intrude on the established political systems.
And then they can go ahead and take the burden of ribbon-cuttings, sex scandals, and all of the other things people expect from monarchies off of the people with real power, too.
Here’s an interesting fact: monarchical countries consistently rank high in a number of indices that are used to provide comparisons between standards of living in different countries.
I question the 45 monarchies number. Why isn’t North Korea considered a monarchy? It has a hereditary dictatorship. I know his title isn’t king or emperor, but it can’t just be due to what he calls himself. They also call themselves democratic and a republic, but we don’t choose to believe them.
Interesting discussion. Here’s a hypothetical, though maybe an unlikely one: should the UK decide to abolish the monarchy (or future generations of US voters decide to change to a parliamentary system), how would the head of state be determined?
)