|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| How would you get rid of them should they become incompetent? Corrupt? A tyrant? Would you chop of their head, because a monarch is for life. |
HW and I have already pondered the idea that there might be a limit to the length of their reign.
Certainly there needs to be some kind of procedure for when the monarch becomes temporarily or permanently unfit for rule - and a proper process for determining if indeed there is such a case.
Editted for clarification.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
It can work very well, and has done so...sometimes. But it needs a good monarch. How do you guarantee one?
In some ways, I'd rather live in a society that had an exceedingly good lifelong and absolute monarch at the helm, than seeing one government after another eschew the costly implementation of longterm needs for short-term vote-grabbing pleasers. But it would require a special kind of monarch. How would we ensure the quality of our monarchs?
Also, what kind of monarchy are we talking about? There are various models. |
I think the idea is some kind of constitutive monarchy reminiscent of the English monarchy. Nobody with as much active, transformative power as Henry VIII or Louis XVI, though.
|
You mean something along the lines of post Charles II but pre George IV? Charles I dreamed of absolute monarchy (which didn't go down too well as most well know). After George IV, the monarchs pretty much lost power, and now we have something that's more of a figurehead and rubberstamp. |
Absolute monarchy would be a terrible idea. Absolute constitutions are untenable, anyway, even absolute democracy.
But for it to be a proper monarchy, in the Aristotelian definition, the monarch must have a great deal of power, certainly more so than the aristocracy (and get creative with this one, I don't necessarily mean landed gentry, more like academics and holders of capital) or the demos. How much power is a matter for debate.
Remember that Aristotle defines a monarch as (s)he who rules to the common interest, a tyrant is (s)he who rules towards private interest. We don't want a tyrant, and probably no system can ward off the possibility of a monarchy descending into a tyranny.
My understanding of English domestic history is really vague and primarily informed by colonial history and Shakespeare. After scanning wiki, it seems the Georges were fairly weak, whereas the Stuarts somewhat arrogant. Apparently, Elizabeth I was the first monarch to understand that her authority rested on popular consent, not the divine right of kings. Some understanding of popular consent is necessary, simply because the people can revolt (there's nothing more pathetic than Richard II's mewlings after he's been deposed in the Shakespeare play). Probably more understanding of this is better than some. Nevertheless, the monarch's authority best rests on the understanding of common interest rather than merely gratifying the many. Complete divine right is out, I think, but as long as we stay away from the superstitions that plagued Ming Emperors, some divine authority might be useful.
I also think hereditary succession is out. It doesn't work very well.
We need a monarch strong enough to resist corporate capture and the contradictory whims of the multitude, but one restrained enough to respect core individual rights, if only because rights add legitimacy and even efficacy to the government's authority. |
Elizabeth I was one of our very best monarchs. I think only Alfred the Great comes close IMHO. William III was pretty good too, I suppose. Even though he was Dutch!
So how would we go about choosing the monarch? Something along the lines of the pope, where he gets the job for life and is chosen by 120 cardinals? I understand that the successful candidate needs a two-thirds majority - so that would help meet our criteria of popular consent (providing the equivalent of our cardinals were truly representative of the people). By the time the pope gets the job, he's an old bugger, and so has already proved his intelligence and ability with a few good decades behind him, so you can judge him by a long track record. That seems much better than giving someone the throne on account of their DNA.
Edit: thinking about the monarch's age. We don't want her to be too old (too tired, senile, etc) so maybe we need a limit. But we want her long term, so when should she be chosen? When she's mature with a good track record behind her, but still got a few good decades left to go? About 40, perhaps? |
Here in America the President must be at least 45 years of age. He's the closest thing to a monarch in any Western democracy. I could go as low as 30, really. You want a monarch to last a good generation, so about 25-35 years of rule. I think a term limit of 40 years would have great advantages.
And the selection process could vary. I would have the body representing the aristocracy select a handful of candidates, the body representing the demos vet them for at least a year, and then the people vote directly, with a French-style run-off for the top two.
Alternatively, you could have a single body, like the Cardinals, except their sole purpose was to select the crown. The other constitutive bodies would each send representatives to replace holders of this life-long office as they died out. I believe Iran has such a body.
Or some variation of the above two proposals.
What I wouldn't want are campaigning would-be monarchs. I believe America has this problem where we get the most charismatic, telegenic leaders who turn around and treat the office of President as a continual campaign platform. One must balance between consent of the people and choice of the people.
The important thing is that potential monarchs needn't discuss actual ongoing issues. They might answer hypotheticals, philosophical questions, or questions probing their character. But they would have the privilege, indeed the duty, from abstaining on direct questions of current, pressing issues.
I'd expect there'd be religious freedom embodied in a kind of Free Exercise Clause. Nevertheless, Koveras might be opposed to an Establishment Clause. Its much more important that people be free to worship as they please than that the government be restrained from promoting religion X, particularly if the promotion is merely symbolic. |
Yes indeed HW, regarding the charismatic telegenic thing. This is why many Aussies voted against a republic about 10 years ago (I was there during the lead up to the referendum). Who wants to go through this kind of superficial and trivial nonsense each time we choose a head of state. Stupid wasteful campaigns with the various contestants' noggins plastered all over buses and flashed up every 5 minutes on your TV screen. That's one reason many chose to stick with Lizzie. {There are many other reasons, including the fact that the republican model they were offered was less desirable than the status quo}
I also like the idea of keeping monarchs from being mired down in temporary short term issues. This is one flaw of short-term government that our monarchy is being brought in to address.
As for the methods of selection you have outlined, I can't think of anything superior for the moment.
Freedom of religion is a must. We've fought too many wars over it. Also, in this day and age, the monarchy ought to be secular, with religion being a private matter for each of the monarch's subjects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| How would you get rid of them should they become incompetent? Corrupt? A tyrant? Would you chop of their head, because a monarch is for life. |
HW and I have already pondered the idea that there might be a limit to their role.
Certainly there needs to be some kind of procedure for when the monarch becomes temporarily or permanently unfit for rule - and a proper process for determining if indeed there is such a case. |
In the European Middle Ages informal procedures existed and were used. The Church also had formal procedures. Give me a few days; I will forward a few examples and explain the ideas behind it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? If you want to see a monarch just look north at Kim Jong Il, thats a lot closer than what you are describing. It will be even more so if it stays in the family after he goes. Plato's philosopher king hasn't and won't ever exist, monarchy as a modern form of governance is over, and I say good riddance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Because Jordan and Saudi Arabi are so much fun, am I right? |
It's a red herring to adduce them as mere examples of monarchy when they're also examples of cultural alien-ness. In passing I might well mention Bhutan, which to me seems exceedingly well run. They're modernizing though so we'll see what comes of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Because Jordan and Saudi Arabi are so much fun, am I right? |
It's a red herring to adduce them as mere examples of monarchy when they're also examples of cultural alien-ness. In passing I might well mention Bhutan, which to me seems exceedingly well run. They're modernizing though so we'll see what comes of it. |
Here is a list of current monarchs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchs
Most of these are mere figureheads. Interesting list though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sometimes I like to read through Uri Avnery's column. He's a bit of a rascal and makes me chuckle. Anyway, reading this article reminded me of this thread. Here's a snippet.
A Parliamentary Mob
| Quote: |
WHEN I was first elected to the Knesset, I was appalled at what I found. I discovered that, with rare exceptions, the intellectual level of the debates was close to zero. They consisted mainly of strings of clich�s of the most commonplace variety. During most of the debates, the plenum was almost empty. Most participants spoke vulgar Hebrew. When voting, many members had no idea what they were voting for or against, they just followed the party whip.
That was 1967, when the Knesset included members like Levy Eshkol and Pinchas Sapir, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin and Yohanan Bader, Meir Yaari and Yaakov Chazan, for whom today streets, highroads and neighborhoods are named.
In comparison to the present Knesset, that Knesset now looks like Plato�s Academy.
WHAT FRIGHTENED me more than anything else was the readiness of members to enact irresponsible laws for the sake of fleeting popularity, especially at times of mass hysteria. One of my first Knesset initiatives was to submit a bill which would have created a second chamber, a kind of Senate, composed of outstanding personalities, with the power to hold up the enactment of new laws and compel the Knesset to reconsider them after an interval. This, I hoped, would prevent laws being hastily adopted in an atmosphere of excitement.
The bill was not considered seriously, neither by the Knesset nor by the general public. The Knesset almost unanimously voted it down. (After some years, several of the members told me that they regretted their vote.) The newspapers nicknamed the proposed chamber �the House of Lords� and ridiculed it. Haaretz devoted a whole page of cartoons to the proposal, depicting me in the garb of a British peer.
So there is no brake. The production of irresponsible laws, most of them racist and anti-democratic, is booming. The more the government itself is turning into an assembly of political hacks, the more the likelihood of its preventing such legislation is diminishing. The present government, the largest, basest and most despised in Israel�s history, is cooperating with the Knesset members who submit such bills, and even initiating them itself.
The only remaining obstacle to this recklessness is the Supreme Court. In the absence of a written constitution, it has taken upon itself the power to annul scandalous laws that violate democracy and human rights. But the Supreme Court itself is beleaguered by rightists who want to destroy it, and is moving with great caution. It intervenes only in the most extreme cases.
Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: parliament, the highest expression of democracy, is itself now posing a dire threat to Israeli democracy. |
It also reminds of the current election campaign in Australia, where they are campaigning to appease the mean-minded pettiness of section of the public obsessed with a few flimsy boats arriving in Australian waters every so often. To hear them going on, you'd think they were faced with a bloody Armada every few weeks. Little coverage is given to more serious issues, it seems. Oh yeah, and what the first female PM of Australia is wearing - her fashion gaffs, haircut, and all the rest. Christ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Oops! Typo. Just for anyone trying to follow the discussion - I meant to say a limit to their rule, not their role. And by a limit, I meant a temporal limit. For example, perhaps a cutoff of a 30 year reign...or something along those lines. |
Not really a monarch then is it? |
Why? Who decided it was mandatory that all monarchs serve until they die? There are plenty of examples of monach's giving up their crown or being deposed while alive. James II comes to mind immediately. |
James II wasn't exactly by choice or easy to get rid off. Term limits do not a monarch make. |
Leon is right, kings don't have term limits. Term limits imply that power is on loan from somewhere else. That isn't monarchy. The situation is different when a king *chooses* to abdicate or is lawfully deposed. |
You are talking about absolute monarchs. There are different methods of selecting monarchs, from heredity to being elected. And there are different ways of having them ending their term. They don't have to die.
I think this objection is silly. We are talking about a monarch for the 21st century. We are not obliged to follow some old tradition from days of yore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| We are not obliged to follow some old tradition from days of yore. |
Exactly, no need for a monarchy, it's silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HW invited us to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of monarchy. Instead of just saying 'good riddance' to monarchy, why don't you actually give a concrete argument for why you are against a monarchy.
Just yelling "monarchies suck!" is rather tedious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
HW invited us to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of monarchy. Instead of just saying 'good riddance' to monarchy, why don't you actually give a concrete argument for why you are against a monarchy.
Just yelling "monarchies suck!" is rather tedious. |
You said it yourself.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| We are not obliged to follow some old tradition from days of yore. |
What are the arguments for it? You clearly don't understand the concept of a monarchy from your previous post. An absolute monarchy can not survive in a free society, and what's the point, other than tradition, of a monarch that is just a figure head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
