Thanks for this. What was the proposed model?
When monarchs have any actual power, generally the places end up shitholes. Local example.
1999 Australian republic referendum followed from the Constitutional Convention in 1998.
Three models proposed from the Convention; in precis:
- Appointment by a select Council.
- Selected by two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament
- Direct popularly elected
The bi-partisan (#2) model was taken to a referendum and failed, primarily because the monarchists didn’t want any republican model (if it ain’t broke don’t fix it) while the radical republicans loathed model #2 (vote no to the politician’s president) and if they couldn’t get a direct election (which ironically would have delivered a partisan politician as president) they opted for the status quo, likely thinking that if the referendum failed there would be sufficient public interest to give them a second chance.
That was only ever a pipe dream and popular zeal for the cause has waned substantially. Another attempt at constitutional reform is unlikely within the next generation, maybe not in the next century.
Counterexample: Liechtenstein; in contrast to most other European nations, Prince Hans Adam II has expanded his powers during his reign, including the right to veto any legislation and to dismiss any government minister. When he proposed the new constitution in 2003, he threatened that if it didn’t pass he would move to Austria; it passed.
In the aftermath of World War II, Liechtenstein was an agricultural backwater and the princely family lost most of their landed wealth in Bohemia and Silesia; today, the country has one of the world’s highest standards of living and Hans Adam makes the list of the world’s wealthiest monarchs.
I understand objections to all of those. How much power does Australia’s head of state have? In looking at the Irish and Greek systems, the head of state seems to be largely limited in power, which seems to be a pretty important component of success for abolishing the monarchy.
Microstates dont count, really, since lots of stuff is handled by others. They have no military, for example.
The Monarchy in Spain only exist today because Franco chose to use it to legitimize his dictatorship. I’d call it an outlier in this data set.
None of the other countries were invaded due to political instability, so I don’t see why you even mention that.
And a great comparison to the Scandinavian countries are Iceland and Finland, who are just as stable without monarchy.
There is of course a danger here of this becoming tautological, since the transition from monarchy in Europe has generally been due to violence of some sort, but to me that signifies a need to provide better evidence that monarchy has contributed significantly to the stability of certain countries, rather than the stability of certain countries having allowed monarchy to remain the system of government.
With due respect, you could not possibly have missed the point by a more absurd margin.
The point isn’t that Queen Elizabeth is responsible for Brexit, because of course she isn’t; I’m not an idiot. The point is that she doesn’t make any positive difference at all.
Let me say it again; if the monarchy were good for the governance of the UK you’d be able to show how it makes the UK a better run country. But there is simply no evidence at all that that’s true.
Franco used it to turn Spain into a functioning democracy instead of continuing a dictatorship. Franco should be a great hero in Spain. He kept Spain from disintegrating into a plethora of small nations (which may be happening now), from going Commie, and kept Spain out of WW2. he then, instead of passing on the reins of dictator to a successor, set up the monarchy and brought in a peaceful transition to a working democracy.
If the Republicans had won, Spain would have split, with several going Communist. Germany would have invaded. Spain would today be in the sitrep of what used to be Yugoslavia, with more civil wars, ethic cleansings, secret police, and what not.
Dont get me wrong Franco was a dictator and fairly brutal at times. Just that the alternative would have been far, far worse.
And they don’t share real Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee with the rest of the world.
I am not sure that qualifies. I don’t see why that makes it an outlier? In any case, the Spanish King personal denouncement of the 1981 coup attempt is generally seen as the final end of the coup. Its hard to think of a more solid example of a monarch functioning as a stabilizing force. Outside of Thailand anyway.
Invasions generally cause political instability. How similar were the governments of France, Austria, Poland, etc to the pre-occupation ones?
What? How is having a civil war in any way stable?
Well, if nothing else, not chucking more kerosene on the political tire fire is a positive.
So Spanish get’s to be an example of stability after a civil war and decades of dictatorship. And Finland get’s to be an example of instability for not having a perfect transition to independence?
The French government changed on a continuum, Austria was annexed by Germany rather than occupied, and was then occupied by the allies, if they’d still have had a monarchy the Allies would likely have required the end of it, Poland was already a mess.
Finland necessarily has to be evaluated by stability after independence, and I find it natural to give them a grace period. 
You’re holding up the Thai “monarchy” as something good? Oh, please.
A number of European countries still have a monarch around, and with the exception of the Greeks, who threw them out repeatedly, it seems to work OK. They provide a live show for tourists, keep then gossip columnists in business, do all the ceremonial stuff for visiting dignitaries and do a lot of “how nice … jolly good” small talk when visiting their subjects in hospitals and the like. In short, a nicely costumed PR show.
These days any authority they have is pretty much formal rubber-stamping of what parliament had decided. They keep out of the day to day political furballs, but exist as a restraining influence, potentially at least, if some politician decides to be less than democratic. And they are the head of state of last resort, if all else has gone. The original backup plan.
Oh, and they are great for boosting tourism.
You may be right. Among Siam’s neighbors, Burma, Laos and Cambodia suffered severe problems. Malaysia hasn’t had trouble: it is also a constitutional monarchy. Cambodia’s problems began about when its monarch was overthrown.
The personal morality and charisma of the individual Monarch may be relevant. Rama IX was a very special man but he passed away in 2016. (BTW, I’m curious about U.S. news reports on our current crisis, but am afraid to Google. Would appreciate discussion here or via PM.)
For several of those pairs the republican pair differs in significant ways that can be said to be both the cause of their lack of monarchy and any differences in performance. Three of them have been ruled, and to greater and lesser extent oppressed, by neighbours for several hundred years. If anything they would show that bad monarchy leads to instability with long lasting effects.
The Spanish Kings putting down the 1981 coup attempt seems to me to be a direct example of a Monarch acting as a stabilizing force in extremis. As for Finland, it may be easier to compare it to Norway with whom it shares a border and which gained independence at a fairly similar time and in a similar economic position.
Finland chose a republican form of government, Norway went for a monarchy. Finland then had a civil war with the communists on one side. Ten years later, when revolutionary communists won the election in Norway, the King intervened to guide the situation to a peaceful incorporation of the revolutionaries.
Yes, but my argument is that conquest and occupation is a big source of turmoil.
The argument was advanced that the current set of monarchies remain monarchies because they have experience more stability in their history.
My point is that upon closer examination of their histories, it is not so calm and stable. It merely appears that way from todays perspective because these states have managed to weather the turmoil well. And in many cases we can see the active intervention of a monarch stabilizing the situation.
Its hard to disagree with that. The group is simply very small. However, my point remains that across these differences (which are not the same from pair to pair) monarchies do better overall. A bit better such as Sweden and Finland, or a lot such as Denmark and Germany. Both as a group and when compared individually to similar cases.
Monarchy can work if a lot of ifs get iffed to unif the situation to not be not if. So, basically you might get stable long term (centuries!) government (fairy tales agree), which is impossible in this RL world now, as things tend to get iffed really quickly by the sheer mass of ifs. (if = x)
So Monarchies are passe by a large margin now. I simply can not see any reason to vote for fresh monarchy, although, old ones might be sometimes beneficiary for tourism and general moral rising purposes (when paparazzi-proofed). I’d say also for general peon upscale gossiping, but we have reality shows for that now.
But there’s a survivor bias at work here. There are many examples from history where the active intervention of a monarch has not stabilised the situation, or has destablised it. Those countries tend not to be monarchies today. “Tending to stablise the sitaution” may be not so much a characteristic of monarchies as a characteristic of the monarchies that have survived. But in fact the great bulk of monarchies that existed in the modern era have not survived; they probably tell us far more about the pros and cons of monarchy in general than the relatively few that have survived.