These days everyone is always banging on about how good democracy is, but in reality democracy has 2 terrible failings:
The people don’t really have any say at all in a democracy
Accountability is lost
This simply leads to all democracy becoming by necessity an oligarchy with the apearance of benefitting the people whereas in actual fact all decisions benefit only the oligarchy.
Since decisions are not shown to be made by any one individual, no-one is held accountable for bad decisions, and although blame might be shifted around, ultimately no-one is punished. In this way many terrible decisions are made because there is no deterrant.
In contrast because a monarch is completely accountable to the people, he must by necessity make good decisions that are in the interests of the people or be deposed. (Assuming that the political mechanism for desposition exists). Of course there should be some council of elders who can ultimately override all decisions, and a good selection mechanism should exist, not relying on blood.
I can’t see how your system is an improvement on the one we’ve got. Every election, the leaders are held accountable and deposed if they’re found wanting. Exactly the same as in your hypothetical monarchy.
The only difference I can see between the current system and yours is that yours contains one leader and the current one contains many.
So your system would have some kind of constantly active mechanism for deposing an unwanted monarch? How would this work practically? If someone wanted to depose the monarch, would he/she have to collect signatures? Start an election? Run for monarch him/herself? By the way, how is the monarch chosen?
As I said the council would deal with all that stuff. The monarch should be chosen in the best possible way, I don’t want to get bogged down in details.
Most monarchies in history have had other institutions such as the Senate, Parliaments, consuls, prime ministers, chancellors, all with varying powers and different levels of accountability.
Is there any particular system you wish to advocate?
If a leader is chosen by a TV program, it really isn’t a monarchy, is it? I mean, the bit about hereditary rights and all that seems to be missing.
And I admire the way that you slough off elections as not holding leaders accountable. Tell that to Johnson in 1968, Carter in 1980, Bush in 1992, and… uhm, well, it doesn’t look so good for 2004, but still.
I find this whole post puzzling, especially as I live in a country with a Monarchy stretching back over centuries.
Firstly the standard quote is that ‘Democracy has its faults, but is better than all the alternatives.’
I think this is obvious, but will happily debate it if you want.
‘The people don’t really have any say at all in a democracy’
Since the whole point of democracy is that people have a say, I don’t understand you. Sure unscrupulous politicians can try to subvert democracy, but that’s a danger in any system.
In a Monarchy, the people have precisely no say at all. Look up ‘‘The peasants’ revolt’ and ‘English Civil War’.
‘Accountability is lost’
And what do you think an election is?
There aren’t any elections in a Monarchy.
‘because a monarch is completely accountable to the people’ :smack:
In what way?
If an English mediaeval Monarch wanted your lands, monastery, wife or daughter he simply took them.
If he wanted to declare war he did.
If he wanted to draft you, he did.
If he wanted you dead, he dropped a hint and people killed you.
You don’t have constitutional rights under a Monarchy.
‘council of elders who can ultimately override all decisions’
So it’s not a Monarchy, then?
And who picks these ‘elders’?
Are they … elected?
What a great system. Let’s call it … democracy.
So, your solution to this problem is to have an absolute leader who cannot be deposed by the people at large and is only responsible to a small council?
I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
And what would be the deterrant to a monarch who only has to answer to a few council members. So long as his decisions benefit those councilmembers, why would they get rid of him, even if his decisions did flush the rest of the populace down the toilet?
But the point of the monarchy is that there ISN’T a mechanism for deposition. I mean, how would the monarch be accountable to the people? Elections? Polls? A referendum?
What you’re probably imagining is an absolute dictator who can make any decision he wants and can pass any law with no interference, who is watched over and appointed by an elected council that can depose him by a majority or supermajority vote.
Perhaps my use of the term “monarchy” was misleading, I see that we have different interpretations of the scope of the word.
What I mean by a monarch is: a single ruler, not chosen by bloodline, but by a rigorous system of examination and competition.
He could be deposed by the council if the people showed their discontent. I expect they would do this by rioting, looting and whooping in an excited fashion.
The point is though that he would be a very benificient monarch because of the rigour of the selection process. The likelyhood that the council would actually have to depose him would be infinitely small.
There would be a similarly rigorous selection process for the council of elders, so that no bad seeds got in. However their normal influence would be very small.
