Monarchy - yes or no?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a spin-off of a conversation that started in the Should Scotland be Independent? thread. Here's where things left off:

I've yet to see a monarch of any country who is above politics.

Well, it depends what is meant by politics. But monarchs can be above much partisan, party politics.

"Can be" and "are" are two different things. Personally, I think that the mere existence of a monarch is itself a political statement and the monarchy is a political tool. The monarch can be used to political ends either by the government or herself in a sort of "panda diplomacy", only with a human being instead of a marsupial: if you're some other country and you're in favour with the British crown, then you might just get the Queen or one of her relatives to come to your country so your elected representatives can pose next to her for pictures... but only if you're in favour with the British crown. The monarchy is a political tool.

While a monarch can choose whether or not to speak on any particular issue, a monarch who never, ever speaks to any issue is as rare as a unicorn.

Even in the case of Elizabeth, who generally doesn't express her political views publicly, she's been reported to have used her political influence in private talks with decision-makers. She is definitely not apolitical. She may be someone who attempts to shield her political influence from public scrutiny and accountability, but she definitely wields it when it suits her.

... and her son Charles, the heir to the throne, is reportedly much worse in this regard: BBC News - Prince Charles 'tried to influence government decisions'

I'm also unsure how a person who is the monarch of 16 different geographically and culturally diverse sovereign nations could be an "effective symbol of the heritage and rooted identity" of any one of them (unless you mean "rooted" in the Australian sense, maybe).

To be honest, I'm not especially concerned with her role in any nation but England (despite being half-Australian and residing there temporarily), but I do think that in many of the Commonwealth nations she provides a symbol of their heritage in one form or other.

I find this view strange, since this whole thing started as a discussion about Scottish independence and Scottish views. Should Scotland consider the Queen to be a Scottish symbol?

I'm Canadian myself. While I wouldn't go so far as the Americans do by requiring their head of state to be born in the country he or she leads, I do think that a head of state ought to have some sort of real connection to any country he or she purports to be the head of. I personally consider it a point of national shame that my country has never had a head of state who's even lived here.

As for the monarchy as a "symbol of heritage", well, there are plenty of symbols of heritage. There's such a shared history between Canada and the UK, or Australia and the UK, or Scotland and England, that the links of heritage between them will be more than apparent regardless of the legal status of the monarchy.

The legitimacy of government is derived from the consent of the governed. Monarchy attempts to throw this principle away... even though most monarchists at least pay lip-service to the idea (for instance, by trotting out survey results about public support for the monarchy).

I disagree that is where the legitimacy of government is derived from. I take the Aristotelian position that government is natural to man; it tends to emerge the moment his society advances to a certain size and level. Government should be good, free, and just. And it will need, to be so, to represent the interests of all individuals and groups within its territories, as far as possible. But consent, except in the broadest sense, is not necessary for a legitimate government, I would say. I do not worship King Numbers.

You say that you support government that's "good, free, and just", but then you say that consent is unnecessary. Exactly how could a government that doesn't respect the will of the people achieve the objectives you describe.

Famously, exactly what consent of the governed means is fraught and far from clear. Why, for example, should 50% +1 be considered the people? Why is this minority not just as much the people?

So now we've morphed from the idea of consent of the people to a narrow focus on simple majorities? I'm not sure what you're basing this leap on; it certainly isn't based on anything I said.

Personally, I dislike the first-past-the-post system. I prefer proportional representational systems. Still, though, I recognize that while a first-past-the-post system has its problems, it's still leaps and bounds ahead of a system where the people have no voice at all.

How are people to express their consent? Our systems, for example, seem to have quite a gap between where the people get their say and where the decisions are made. In Britain, even leaving aside the vast role of the EU and special interests, we are governed by those voted for by a majority (or even minority) of MPs, who are voted for once every five years by the largest amount of voters who happen to turn out on election day. Of course, more representation of the opinion of the people will tend to make government less efficient, which goes to show that our systems do not really operate on consent of the governed as some divine principle that must always be upheld.

Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages of both direct democracy, representative democracy, and their hybrids. None of this means that we should throw away the principle of democracy and start choosing our leaders based on bloodlines.

And, are the people to be represented in their natural and voluntary groups and associations, or only as individuals only? Seeing as most people are immersed in such associations and get much of their mundane identity from them.

I'm sorry - how is this supposed to be relevant to what we're talking about?

Our societies, all societies, are the product of low growth over generations. What we enjoy was painstakingly bequeathed to us by our ancestors - if we destroy it, it could not rebuilt in centuries - and what our posterity will enjoy is what we give them in inheritance. As Burke put it, "[Society] is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." So, why is consent of the governed simply to be a fleeting, momentary majority. It seems a bad way to govern, to me.

Democracy is not incompatible with tradition. Any tradition that is supported by the people would be kept... and if a tradition isn't supported by the people, why impose it on them?

Also, it seems to me that overall, your arguments present a false dichotomy: effectively, you're saying "I think democracy is flawed, therefore monarchy." Monarchy is not the default.

 

[Revoltingest]

Minor correction:
One needn't be born here to become prez (eg, John McCain
was foreign born but eligible.), although there are restrictions.
Even adoption of a foreign born infant of non-citizens might
be able to run for prez, but there is debate about this.

 

[sandandfoam]

I cannot accept the idea of birthright.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't believe that anyone should be entitled to privilege based on heredity. Monarchism should be abolished.

 

[Vinayaka]

I cannot accept the idea of birthright.

Me neither, but it applies to far more than monarchy. Old money is the other main one, but in many ways just an extension of the category. In many other cases, like Hollywood, chances are tremendously improved, not a right, but still.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Minorcorrection:
One needn't be born here to become prez (eg, John McCain
was foreign born but eligible.), although there are restrictions.
Even adoption of a foreign born infant of non-citizens might
be able to run for prez, but there is debate about this.

Yeah, I knew about those nuances, but they were tangential to my point, so I decided not to get down to that level of detail. While there are some grey areas around the edges (e.g. McCain, who was born on a US base in Panama while his father was serving there), the US would never allow a situation like what we have in Canada or other Commonwealth realms, where a person can become the Canadian head of state without ever having lived in Canada or having any Canadian ancestors whatsoever. Heck - we've had heads of state who never even set foot on Canada at any point in their lives.

If you want to be a city councillor, you have to live in the city. If you want to be a senator, you have to live in the province you represent. But if you're the Canadian head of state, not only do you not have to live there, you don't even have to visit.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there are no requirements for the office at all: there's the religious test. Apparently, it's considered better for us to have someone uninterested in our nation and uninvolved in our affairs in our highest position as long as he's a Protestant than to have a home-grown, civic-minded Catholic. It's ridiculous.

 

[Kathryn]

The very idea that someone is "destined to become a monarch' based solely on their parentage - AND their birth order - is archaic and ridiculous.

That being said, if whole swaths of humanity choose to spend their tax dollars supporting such people and their progeny, I guess that's their choice. Thankfully, I'm not faced with that distasteful scenario.

 

[illykitty]

I don't believe that anyone should be entitled to privilege based on heredity. Monarchism should be abolished.

This. :yes:

 

[Revoltingest]

Parenthetical aside:
I'd like to see Canuckistan ruled by Rob Ford.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The very idea that someone is "destined to become a monarch' based solely on their parentage - AND their birth order - is archaic and ridiculous.

That being said, if whole swaths of humanity choose to spend their tax dollars supporting such people and their progeny, I guess that's their choice. Thankfully, I'm not faced with that distasteful scenario.

"If they choose..."

The whole point of monarchy is that the choice of the people is irrelevant.

... and I'm not sure that we can necessarily infer that people like their monarchies just from the fact they don't depose them. Take Canada: many people are adverse to any sort of discussion about Constitutional change because it tends to get the Quebec separatists riled up. Can we really say that people support the monarchy just because they find the status quo preferable to political turmoil and, potentially, breaking up the country? I don't think so.

And most monarchies are even worse than Canada. While getting rid of the monarchy here would create side effect problems, it could be done bloodlessly. Most of the time, getting rid of a monarchy involves a violent revolution and the potential that the monarch would be replaced with something worse, like a military dictatorship or a theocracy.

 

[Father Heathen]

Lineage shouldn't entitle anyone to anything. It should be gained by ability, effort, and achievement.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lineage shouldn't entitle anyone to anything. It should be gained by ability, effort, and achievement.

I'll agree with you about rulers of governments, but I'll leave my Hawaiian
shirt collection to my kids, who are more entitled to wear (or sell) it than
other people's kids. I'll leave'm some money & real estate too.

 

[Yerda]

I cannot accept the idea of birthright.

Neither can I.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm a no, but I appear to live in a country whose monarch is popular. But then so is the idea of capital punishment. And having great services, pensions, schools, roads and hospitals but not funded by taxes.

 

[Secret Chief]

Alex Salmond is a yes man. He wants an independent Scotland with Liz as the "Queen of the Scots."

 

[Shad]

As a Canadian I think my government should sever the symbolic ties to the monarchy. It is a waste of public funds especially in the case of the Governor-General which has one job requirement. Signing into law what the Canadian Government passes on the behalf of a figurehead Queen. We have stamps which could do this which do not require a pay check. It is redundant bureaucracy and amounts to little more than PR for than an symbolic absentee land lord.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

This is a spin-off of a conversation that started in the Should Scotland be Independent? thread. Here's where things left off:


"Can be" and "are" are two different things. Personally, I think that the mere existence of a monarch is itself a political statement and the monarchy is a political tool. The monarch can be used to political ends either by the government or herself in a sort of "panda diplomacy", only with a human being instead of a marsupial: if you're some other country and you're in favour with the British crown, then you might just get the Queen or one of her relatives to come to your country so your elected representatives can pose next to her for pictures... but only if you're in favour with the British crown. The monarchy is a political tool.

While a monarch can choose whether or not to speak on any particular issue, a monarch who never, ever speaks to any issue is as rare as a unicorn.

Even in the case of Elizabeth, who generally doesn't express her political views publicly, she's been reported to have used her political influence in private talks with decision-makers. She is definitely not apolitical. She may be someone who attempts to shield her political influence from public scrutiny and accountability, but she definitely wields it when it suits her.

... and her son Charles, the heir to the throne, is reportedly much worse in this regard: BBC News - Prince Charles 'tried to influence government decisions'

Actually, I would like the monarch to be more involved in politics. If anything, the Queen has not intervened enough, especially as regards traitorous surrendering of sovereignty by British politicians to Brussels. The Blair thing, for example, would have taken Britain into the Euro if Gordon Brown had not saved us! That an act of attainder was not passed against him is a blight on Her Majesty's reign, as is the fact he continues to walk free and proud.

My point was about partisan, party politics. A monarch can be above such partisan politics much more easily. I admire HRH and think he is generally an interesting and insightful person. He would make a much preferable ruler to any of the shulch which makes up the leadership of the three major parties in Britain. This is precisely because a monarch is born to their position, reared as the representative and symbol of the nation and not a demagogic panderer or placeman.

When you think of the Blair creature or Heath or Cameron, and then you compare them to Her Majesty or HRH Prince Charles, the comparison is obvious.

I find this view strange, since this whole thing started as a discussion about Scottish independence and Scottish views. Should Scotland consider the Queen to be a Scottish symbol?

Yes, but, though, that is their business more than mine. But Scotland is not Canada. The Kingdom of Scotland has an ancient history.

You say that you support government that's "good, free, and just", but then you say that consent is unnecessary. Exactly how could a government that doesn't respect the will of the people achieve the objectives you describe.

By having a government that rules according to the rule of law, according to historic liberties and rights; that rules with prudence and wisdom and equity; and that aims to serve the interests of all sections of society. It can be argued some popular input is necessary to prudentially guarantee a government is reasonably good, just, and free, but I see no moral necessity for it.

What you need to do is define what you really mean by consent of the governed and what it looks like in practice.

So now we've morphed from the idea of consent of the people to a narrow focus on simple majorities? I'm not sure what you're basing this leap on; it certainly isn't based on anything I said.

That is the point. You appealed to some great moral principle of the consent of the governed, as if that were a simple concept, either to understand or implement. My point is that it is not and that those systems which seem to come closest to embodying meaningful consent of the governed are those that work the least.

Besides, people do not consent to be governed, except in the broadest possible sense. They are governed. Man is a political and social animal. Government is natural for him. He does not consent in that, so why we should expect that any close idea of consent is necessary for good government to function, I'm unsure.

Personally, I dislike the first-past-the-post system. I prefer proportional representational systems. Still, though, I recognize that while a first-past-the-post system has its problems, it's still leaps and bounds ahead of a system where the people have no voice at all.

Why?

Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages of both direct democracy, representative democracy, and their hybrids. None of this means that we should throw away the principle of democracy and start choosing our leaders based on bloodlines.

Actually, it means that the idea of consent of the governed is ambiguous and vague.

Also, it should be noted that when it comes to down it, I don't think hereditary succession is less likely to embody the will of the people or create a competent ruler. How was Cameron made PM? He was chosen through the arcane means of party politics by a majority of MPs themselves chosen and disciplined through such arcane means, who were elected one day in five years by a plurality of those who deigned to turn up at the polling booths.

Long live democracy! Long live King Numbers!

I'm sorry - how is this supposed to be relevant to what we're talking about?

People are embedded in social associations. Most modern systems of representation take little account of this fact and rule as if individuals were atoms. This makes compromises meaningful representation.

Democracy is not incompatible with tradition. Any tradition that is supported by the people would be kept... and if a tradition isn't supported by the people, why impose it on them?

Because society is a continuity in which knowledge, institutions, and meaning are the product of generations and not momentary decisions of a fleeting, temporary majority.

Also, it seems to me that overall, your arguments present a false dichotomy: effectively, you're saying "I think democracy is flawed, therefore monarchy." Monarchy is not the default.

Actually, I didn't present that argument. In fact, I didn't present one overall argument at all. I responded to some criticisms of monarchy and made some criticisms of democracy presented as an obvious moral or divine position. I actually believe in balanced government - monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy - which respects the traditions and historic identity of the nation, its social associations, and affirms the principles of localism, subsidiarity, and distributism.