Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: A Defense of a Hereditary Head of State | |
Author: Steph (U.S.) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:45:07 01/22/05 Sat The criticism of the British Monarchy by some posters has driven this republican to write a brief apologia for a Hereditary Head of State. In my view a Hereditary Head of State has several points in its favor. First as I have mentioned before, it keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No mater the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it. Second, anyone with eyes can see how the recent presidential election divided the U.S. My sister and I for example had to stop talking about politics for several months leading up to the election because we often ended up shouting at one another. This is not to say that we would not have been passionate in any case, but having the Head of State, Head of Government, Commander in Chief, and Nominator of Judges positions all rolled up in one person does up the stakes during the election. The fact that the President and Vice President are elected on the same ballot means that the Presidency of the Senate is up for grabs as well. A Hereditary Head of State could safely wield part of these powers. For example the Monarch could be head of state, president of the upper house, and chair of a committee to appoint judges. Third, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections. Fourth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elisabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. Fifth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children. Sixth, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is not exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do. Seventh, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena. Some may think it strange for a republican to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, England is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta. Cheers, Steph (P.S. I will address the U.S. in the FCS question next.) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Fascinating. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:50:24 01/22/05 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: A couple of other points | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:37:58 01/22/05 Sat A hereditary head of state works well if it is a constitutional monarchy, as ours is. We all know that autocratic monarchs can be a disaster, getting away with doing whatever they like. A constitutional monarch is bound by the constitution, allows for freely elected governments to govern and has only a 'supervisory' role over government, exercising only emergency powers. The Crown oversees the transition of government during elections. This is an arrangement which, I think, combines the best of monarchy with the best of republicanism (elected head of government - the Prime Minister). An advantage to our system, which is unique in the world, is the fact that Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign of sixteen different independent nations. This binds nations scattered all over the world together. It would be difficult to do this with an elected President. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Good points, Steph..It's too bad that some of HM's own "subjects" did not appreciate your argument | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:43:17 01/22/05 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Opinion | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:58:04 01/23/05 Sun I do not find it strange that a republican, not least a Republican, should seek to defend the system of constitutional monarchy. (Please note, Steph, that, unlike the vast majority of posters on this forum, I cheered loudly when young Bush won in November, and I put my De Souza record on the grammophone, much to the chagrin of my Islamic World League neighbour and his mates.) The entire point, here, is that someone who lives in a republic will be in a better position to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the presidential system, whereas someone who lives in a monarchy will only see something weird and wonderful, and often attractive through its very strangeness and mystery. The grass is always greener etc. I have lived in three republics - RSA, India and Italy - and the people there, although reconciled to and supportive of their politicised head of state, do not have the bizarre and unhealthy hostility towards monarchy which characterises British or Dominion republicans. There is, in my opinion, a simple explanation for this: they have no point to prove, since they already live in republics, and it is not an emotional but an intellectual issue, and therefore more rationally debated. Thus it was in 1660, after 11 years as a republic, that we debated the return to the monarchy. Alas, that was all too long ago, and we have of course forgotten all the lessons of the Commonwealth years, which were, essentially, that republics look good on paper but tend not to perform well in the real world. I have nothing but respect for Americans in this regard, since they are the only people, after objective analysis, who have made a republic work without it degenerating into the kind of tyranny under which British colonials in the 1770s imagined they were suffering. This is, perhaps, because the American Republic has an elective monarchy rather than the usual presidential system. To conclude in a particularly cliché manner, I will go with Plato and state that a constitution depends not only on the changing political circumstances in which a people might find itself, but also the unchanging ethos of that people, and that this indicates that different peoples will prosper under different forms of government, whichever is most appropriate for them. The monarchy may not suit Americans or Europeans or Asians, but it suits Britons very well, and if a Bill ever comes before parliament to do away with it I shall be the first in Parliament Square shouting rude slogans about the socialist republicans, some of which may even rhyme. I shall, of course, consult Ian beforehand, in case my slogans are too McGonagalesque for his liking... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: rhyme if you wish, but scan you must | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:39:39 01/23/05 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: A few years ago... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:34:11 01/23/05 Sun A few years ago, someone did try to get a Republic of Britian or something bill through the House of Commons. It was defeated on its first reading by an overwhelming majority. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: glad to hear it, I republic in Britain is by no means just round the corner | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:01:39 01/23/05 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Neither in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:00:52 01/24/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: If it is really hereditary. why the shyness about DNA tests? | |
|
Author: Ron [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:33:36 01/23/05 Sun To prove primogeniture, it must be proved that they have the right father, otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole system. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Because... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:46:24 01/23/05 Sun Firstly, they are demeaning and imply a lack of trust; and, secondly, primogeniture is a custom and not a law - it is the coronation which makes a monarch, and the coronation can be vetoed by parliament for more or less any reason. They wouldn't choose to do so for frivolous reasons, though, because if there's one thing which governments don't like it is constitutional crises. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Commons, not Lords and Queens | |
|
Author: All power to the mother of parliaments [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:34:43 01/24/05 Mon "Firstly, they are demeaning and imply a lack of trust; and, secondly, primogeniture is a custom and not a law - it is the coronation which makes a monarch, and the coronation can be vetoed by parliament for more or less any reason. They wouldn't choose to do so for frivolous reasons, though, because if there's one thing which governments don't like it is constitutional crises." Firstly, hereditary means to your descendents, secondly, you have to know they're your descendents, and thirdly if they're not, what's the excuse? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:42:05 01/24/05 Mon Our Constitutional Monarchy has provided stable and respected Government across the Commonwealth. Is this not the most important thing? I do not feel that taking DNA mouth swabs of the Heir Apparent would add anything to our democracies. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:44:57 01/24/05 Mon Firstly, your knowledge of constitutional theory and history is evidently poor. Act of Settlement? Abdication? Deposition? Hello? Secondly, "all power to the mother of parliaments" implies a dictatorship of Parliament which makes me, and no doubt others, rather uneasy: the 1650s and 1770s were not fun. Thirdly, your grammar is perfectly beastly. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |