Even when you get rid of your monarchy, you don’t really manage to get rid of it if its part of your cultural history and there are people who want to claim the title. France, in fact, has no monarchy, but gets double the fun through two sets of claimants.
(And don’t even get started on the Romanov nuts).
I think England is stuck with its monarchy for a long time - some will embrace it, some won’t - official or not.
Yeah loads of that. Still a lot of string pulling and conspiracy all over Europe, I would think, even by long lost Barons.
No, that’s not the same thing. There’s three kinds of democratic system:
Having a parliament does not make them a parliamentary system - it’s a label to describe where power and initiative pre-eminently lies.
So in America, a presidential system, the President is the main power-point, being completely independent of the legislature and unaccountable to it (as in, Congress can only remove the president by impeachment, not simply removal by confidence).
Meanwhile, in the UK or Germany, parliamentary states, it is the legislature which is the ultimate master of the government, with the executive essentially being a subcommittee of it. It can dismiss the government at will through a vote of confidence.
France, with its semipresidential system, as you might expect, has a system which has elements of both; the president has extensive power and a lot of autonomy, but has to work with Parliament a lot more than Mr. Obama does. France still has a Prime Minister who deals with day-to-day stuff, but general policy is directed by the President. If the PM and President are both of the same party, generally the President has extensive power and largely gets his way. If the PM and President are of different parties, then it can be a power-struggle, or they will divide fields of interest between them.
I’m not making this up, either - it’s the established labels in the study developed since the 1980s. Juan Linz is a useful starting point as a scholar in the field, but also people like Arend Ljipjart, Donald Shell and the like.
I don’t follow. Are you saying that as long as the President is elected by some constituency, even if not the people at large, then it’s democratic?
I never said France - I actually pointed out France does elect the President, but for the clear reason that their President is a very powerful position. You said you would want to choose the President so to direct what policies you like; France is a country where that would be necessary. Britain and Germany are not.
Perhaps because it has more information on the matter than you do? (I don’t mean that to provoke you, honestly, but with respect you’re coming across as someone who takes the matter as something of principle while others would take it as a matter of practicality). The Economist is a magazine about current affairs, after all. Seems right up their street.
If you can find something else that does provide a list of countries in order of democracy, please feel free to do so.
I never claimed that monarchy makes a country more democratic or more rich - simply that claiming republicanism will do so is a faulty claim.
Then the UK isn’t a monarchy - as there is no power there. Supposedly.
But, really, if a country has a parliament then it is parliamentary - I don’t accept your categories as they are different emphases on the same basic model - democratic representation and seperation of powers. I could equally call all of them presidential.
Actually you said Germany and Italy do not elect their heads of state. I misread France into it. That’s my error.
Yet, when I look at Italy in wikipedia
"The President of the Republic is elected by Parliament in a joint session of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. In addition, the 20 regions of Italy appoint 58 representatives as special electors. Three representatives come from each region, save for the Aosta Valley, which appoints one, so as to guarantee representation for all localities and minorities.
According to the Constitution, the election must be held by a secret ballot, with the 315 Senators, the 630 Deputies and the 58 regional representatives all voting."
Elected, by directly elected representatives, who answer to the people. Theoretically.
So I’m still looking for this majority of countries that are monarchies - I think that will be a long search because it isn’t actually the case.
From a classical theory of the state, it isn’t, no; but in modern day parlance, and that which (I presume) most people on this forum are using as the basis of discussion, the UK is a constitutional monarchy.
Well sorry, but academia disagrees with you. You’re free to tell academia to go whistle, of course, but then all you really have in support of your argument is your personal opinion, which you’re entitled to of course (and I respect it), but it’s not exactly persuasive.
The distinction is important, because in Germany, Italy, Canada, the UK etc. the Head if State’s functions and purpose is quite different from executive models. Rather than a governmental leader, the Head of State in those countries is more like a peculiar kind of judge.
I didn’t say a majority of countries are monarchies - I said that the majority of countries with ceremonial Heads of State do not elect their Head of State (including presidents). I know that for you, having a separate, indirectly elected body elect the Head of State is good enough, but the vast, vast majority of republicans I have encountered think it’s only worthwhile if the office is directly elected.
So really, all this discussion has exposed is that the measure of democracy is fundamentally one of personal taste, not some kind of universal constant. As the majority of the British population are content with the monarchy, then it is democratic that it remain.
-is what you said. You didn’t say that only the majority of ceremonial heads are elected.
All the presidents you have posited as unelected are actually chosen by process of election. Being elected by balloting members of the government doesn’t mean they are just magicked undemocratically into their position - choice of president is obviously a matter of public will and approval if not immediate influence as part of a political package presented to a population. Having parliament or PM choose the president, your words, is an elective process - not the result of closing the eyes and throwing some bones.
They are answerable to the population, as are the governmental entities that elect them.
So I’m afraid you haven’t really backed your point with anything concrete.
Well, that’s splitting hairs. Indirect election isn’t popular election, and it’s not what most republicans demand when they advocate removing the monarchy - their main selling point is ‘the people can choose their Head of State’, when actually, it’s politicians. I don’t find election by others on my behalf to be terribly democratic, really.
If you’re content with Parliament choosing the Head of State, then good for you, but it isn’t really much different in practical terms from what we already have.
Actually, I have. I provided a list by the Economist, a reputable news source, on how democratic countries are, and quoted a number of scholars of democratic theory and constitutional models, which you just rejected because it’s inconvenient to your personal views.
Again, the only conclusion we can make, then, is that this is down to personal taste.
Splitting hairs ? I am merely responding to your assertions. It’s your responsibility to say what you mean and not swap categories around.
The Economist reputable ? Depends who you ask.
The economist is the magazine for the rich and well placed, it has it’s own biases and flaws, and a flip through it’s pages makes this clear.
I’m afraid this is just an appeal to authority and ‘reputation’, and no it doesn’t really suit my opinion.
I’m also afraid that the first thing your esteemed journal says on the matter is-
"There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject. "
Well, I’m contesting.
Is indirect election not popular election ?
Why not ? - if the public doesn’t like the choice of president then they refuse to vote for those whose choices they disagree with - same as with any other issue.
That’s representative democracy - that’s the whole point.
I would take a guess that there are very few presidents whose identities and opinions are not known to the public before they are chosen for them - the secret surprise president nobody had heard of before ? (There’s always Van Rumpuy, I suppose)
I don’t know why people insist that a hereditary head of state such as QEII is above politics. Her inherent position must be… constitutional monarchist, to judge by her actions, otherwise there would be a highly newsworthy and ultimately harmless abdication.
Well, we disagree. Nevertheless thank you for taking the time to respond and debate, I do appreciate it, and I’ve found many interesting things to consider.
I think you’ve misunderstood. You came into this thread claiming that having a constitutional monarchy violates the principle of democracy, and I’ve simply tried to demonstrate how that principle isn’t violated, as there are scholarly sources from quite established sources that are quite comfortable with it.
I still think I’m trying harder than yourself, who has provided nothing to offer to support your opinion besides simply saying it makes sense to you. You’re entitled to say that of course, but then you’re not entitled to extrapolate your opinion into some kind of universal fact.
I know you are - but you gave the impression earlier that the consensus was that your point of view was the consensus, and I’ve challenged that.
No.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anybody in any parliamentary republic who elects their MP or party based on who they want to be the president, no matter how famous the candidate is (particularly as they tend to be elected at times not coinciding with any parliamentary election). In terms of priority, I think it’s probably rock-bottom. Therefore, indirect election of a ceremonial Head of State cannot be said to be direct election no matter how you spin it.
Sorry, I don’t think you’re come across quite clear here: you think the Queen isn’t above politics, but her ‘inherent position’ makes her so? Could you expand?
Malden Capell, I’m impressed with your patience… but it really seems MrQwertyasd isn’t interested in any arguments. Really, if leading academia and reputable newspapers are dismissed this easily, it might just be the time to stop wasting your energy.
If you think presidential candidates are total irrelevances in people’s thinking on their ballot choices then I don’t know what planet your political science journals are written on.
“Chancellor Angela Merkel faces what amounts to a vote of confidence in her leadership on Wednesday when a special parliamentary assembly will elect a new president. **Her popularity has plunged **since her re-election in September due to growing rifts in her center-right coalition, criticism of how she handled the euro crisis and anger at an austerity package many believe is socially unjust. **She urgently needs the result to go her way or she could face the biggest crisis of her political career. **”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7864273/Angela-Merkel-choice-for-German-president-rejected-twice.html
" President Wulff, 51, a regional politician form Lower Saxony, is regarded by many commentators as a colourless candidate from Mrs Merkel’s party machine.
Mr Gauck, his main challenger, is not affiliated to any party and his past as a civil rights activist has resonated with millions of Germans.
**His popularity has revived calls for Germany’s post-Nazi constitution to be changed so the country’s president can chosen by universal suffrage. ** "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_2010
Klaus Ernst subsequently retracted his statements, stating that the Left will not vote for Gauck.
Philipp Freiherr von Brandenstein (CSU) argued that the election of Joachim Gauck would prevent any cooperation between SPD, Greens and the Left Party for years to come: “Gauck has likely made it perfectly clear to Gabriel that he will never appoint any of the apologists of the communist tyranny as government members”.[14]
Nope, plenty of politics there, and plenty of consideration that the public has to be pleased about the choice of president. As it should be in a democracy.
Hard pressed ? It took me two minutes of googling, 'fraid I’ll have to repeat myself here.
"Chancellor Angela Merkel faces what amounts to a vote of confidence in her leadership on Wednesday when a special parliamentary assembly will elect a new president. Her popularity has plunged since her re-election in September due to growing rifts in her center-right coalition, criticism of how she handled the euro crisis and anger at an austerity package many believe is socially unjust. She urgently needs the result to go her way or she could face the biggest crisis of her political career. "
“His ***popularity ***has revived calls for Germany’s post-Nazi constitution to be changed so the country’s president can chosen by universal suffrage.”
Where in any of my posts did I say anything you claimed I say?
I never said the president was irrelevant or unpopular. I said that the question of who the president should be is so down the list of priorities for voters that it might as well not be there at all. Particularly, as I said, the selection of a President tends to happen halfway through a Parliament and so is even farther from their minds at polling day.
It’s quite possible to produce a list of what Germans voted for, in order of priority and fervency, when electing the Bundestag. I can guarantee that ‘this is who I want for President’ is a million miles away from the top ten.
You do realise that this bit kind of undermines your argument that indirect election counts as popular election - if it did, why would people demand it be directly elected? Clearly it’s considered superior to indirect election.
I don’t know. We have tons of people visiting Versailles despite the obvious lack of king there, and there are also a lot of people visiting the (otherwise completely uninteresting) prison cell of marie Antoinette.
So a case could be made for the execution of kings from a tourism income point of view.
While I fully believe that the tourism argument is a poor one, I find comparing Versailles with Buckingham Palace to be problematic, seeing as Versailles is a gigantic, luxurious building with enormous gardens and Buck House is, really, a kind of ugly office building (the Windsors certainly have detested it pretty much since George IV built it!). The closer comparison would be Buckingham Palace and the Palais d’Elysees, and Versailles with Hampton Court.
No, it’s not because it has a parliament that it is parliamentary democracy. There’s a parliamentary democracy when the parliament can pick and sack the government (by a vote of confidence/no confidence). And usually (I don’t know if it’s universal), the executive can in turn dissolve the parliament and call for new elections.
When the parliament has no say about the executive, like in the USA, it’s a presidential system.
Since the French parliament can casrt confidence/no cofindence votes, it’s technically a parliamentary system. It’s often called 'semi-presidential", though because the head of state (the president), elected separately and immune to confidence votes, holds actual political power (when he benefits from the support of the parliament, he’s the actual head of the executive and even when he doesn’t, though the actual head of the executive becomes the parliament-appointed prime minister, the president still retains some non insignificant powers).
Whether or not you accept them is irrelevant. Those are established definitions used in political sciences. The names looks superficially like you could use them to mean whatever you think they should mean, but it’s not anymore true for presidential/parliamentary than it is for legal jargon, or mathematical jargon, etc.. You have to go with the accepted meaning of these words.