When googling the difference between a monarchy and a republic, one can immediately read: “The major difference between a republic and a monarchy is the fact that a monarchy is ruled by a monarch, i.e. a king or a queen, whereas in a republic, the people choose who they want to rule them.”
Why do mass media regard absolute rulers such as Mugabe or Kim Jongun as ‘presidents’?
Is it because they call themselves that? Because their fans and the people they control and influence call them ‘presidents’? In that case why don’t all these mass media call self-declared deities such as Sun Myung Moon or Sai Baba of Shirdi ‘gods’?
In my opinion, international mass media should stop calling absolute rulers ‘presidents’ because by doing so they help legitimize their regimes both domestically and internationally.
The media calls authoritarian heads of states what they call themselves, and authoritarians like “president” because it has an air of legitimacy you don’t get from “king” or “dictator”.
Robert Mugabe is President? Zimbabwe has been a flawed democracy (supported by the military, troublesome elections) but hey, the president of the USA is a game show host.
Kim Jong-un is the Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, never heard anyone refer to him as ‘president’.
True, I’ve made a mistake there, but Mugabe has always been referred to as the president of Zimbabwe.
So, Churchill’s best form of government so far is nothing but a farse, and all these autocratic figures need to do is to give the appearance of being the expression of a democratic choice. And they don’t even have to be good at it.
In what way is this pretend attitude better than what the Inner Party does in Orwell’s ‘1984’?
Yup. Most western democracies are not much more than pretend democracies.
In the sense that it is not the people who determine what policies are implemented or not, neither by direct voting on laws nor by voting on a particular party.
Most of them are formally called President with some sort of electoral process, however sham or rigged. Often they may well have substantial support, even if they don’t take the risk of having entirely open elections.
As far as Zimbabwe is concerned, this is about the old guard in his party deciding Mugabe’s a liability and using the military to get him out in order to secure their position for the next formal elections - even though they are still using formal constitutional processes to ratify the point.
Presidents who get elected or whose prerogatives are increased fraudulently should no longer be named ‘presidents’ but autocrat leaders or downright dictators. Putin and Erdogan are such examples. Erdogan, for instance, has changed the status of the country from a parliamentary republic into a presidential one during the state of emergency that he himself had declared. Whoever opposed his campaign (and exerted some influence) ended up in jail under the charge of terrorism against the state.
I understand why certain politicians and the press that supports them choose to treat these absolute rulers as presidents, but why does the entire free press do so? Why do these venal dictators enjoy legitimacy from those who should reprobate them most vigorously?
No, I’m not. France, Germany, UK, Netherlands… all have ‘elected governments’ but, in practice, the people have no say at all in the policies that get implemented.
This seems quite opposite to reality, IMO. France’s laws are very people-friendly. UK is Brexiting because 51% of the electorate clicked that box against the wishes of most of the elite.
It is true that a country’s hoi polloi often accepts the political policies of well-informed leaders. In functioning democracies, this is a feature not a bug.
Why? If anything, they should be the ones we do call presidents! Lots of “presidents” don’t actually preside over the actions of their states in any meaningful way.
Why does the entire free press call Michael D. Higgins the “president” of Ireland when he does no such thing? Is it because he calls himself that? Because his fans and the people he doesn’t control and influence call him “president”?
Most people. And you unless you’ve recently directly suggested some policy to government they then implemented.
All 18th and 19th century liberals wanted, all they ever wanted, was to substitute themselves and their class into hereditary government as sole rulers. They called themselves ‘The People’.
Perhaps that is because he is, or was, the President of Zimbabwe.
I think you’re reading things into the word “President” that are not actually there.
“President” does not mean “the freely elected head of a democratic nation.” In political terms that it usually means is “the head of state of a republic.” The democratic health of said republic does not change the fact that its head of state is customarily called a President. It can also mean, of course, the top executive of a business or a major division of a business, the head of a college or university, or a few other things, most of which DON’T imply being elected.
Even in democracies, the “President” often has wildly differing roles and powers and in many cases isn’t even directly elected by the people. South Africa does not directly elect its President; the President is elected by the National Assembly (and must actually be a member of the Assembly when elected) but after elected occupies a role similar to the President of the USA. In Germany, the President is elected by a weird mix of legislators and electors, but has a role totally different from the Presidents of the USA or the RSA (no, Angela Merkel isn’t the President.) In Ireland the President is directly elected, but has little practical importance at all, and is largely a ceremonial post. The only real similarity between the positions of President of Ireland and President of the United States is that they are both the heads of state of a republic.
Most ‘people friendly laws’ are a product of fear of socialist revolution, in the last century. Now this fear has mostly dissapated and slowly but surely a lot of the friendly laws are being killed off. The Brexit is still not implemented and referendums are being abolished in the Netherlands.
By which you admit that they aren’t true democracies.