The role of monarchy in modern European states

You're using presidential or semi-presidential systems as examples. There are republics which have a parliamentary focus (like Germany, which i'm not sure why you used as an example of a "strong president", when the president is anything but). Whether the Head of State eclipses the Prime Minister is really a matter of political structure, influence and culture.

Why should you abolish the monarchy? Because you get to choose who you Head of State is, whether you create a new presidential ministry or have the Head of Government be the Head of State.

@Germi: The President of the United States cannot expand his own powers via legislation, 'cause he doesn't have any legislative power at all.

A Prime Minister directly in control of the armed forces is scarier: Putting the guys with the guns under the direct command of the dude with a majority in Parliament (able to expand his own powers through legislation) is a recipe for disaster. That's the reason why most republics with a Prime Minister do have a Presidential office that's separate of that of the premier.

edited 19th Oct '11 11:29:14 AM by SavageHeathen

But that's not an argument against having one person be Head of government and Head of State. It's an argument against having such a person be in charge of the armed forces. Which he/she doesn't have to be, at least not without parliamentary approval.

Typically, we find that the office of the executive is respected, while the actual executive is not. Conversely, the legislative office in general (such as Congress or the British Parliament as a whole) is usually disliked, but individual representatives in the legislative branch tend to be better liked by their constituents.

This may not, as this statement I've quoted demonstrates (if it's true; I don't know), be a universal concept, however.

Closed party lists systems like Spain's make sure individual legislators aren't particularly well-liked. Parties, not individual representatives, usually initiate legislation. Legislators' job is to warm their bench and vote as they're told by the party whip.

It's parties who make the moves, and it's them who carry popularity (very rarely) or impopularity (rather frequently).

I personally don't like proportional representation for the simple reason that it means you don't actually get to vote for your representatives.

~shrug~

I guess I'd say, those countries that have one can decide whether they keep one, and those that don't are probably better off not worrying about it. It really doesn't strike me as that big a deal, most of the time.

Indeed, that is another problem. Political parties in Spain, and in fact like in the rest of Western Europe, are machines of political professionalization, best exemplified by this image.

Nowadays I have no particular opinions on the monarchy. I was a fairly staunch Monarchist at one point though (yes, an American Monarchist, imagine that).

@ Germi

Oh, my mistake about Germany, sorry about that. I mistook the Chancellor as president when she is a prime minister equivalent. I'll scratch that example :P

Choosing my head of state isn't important to me if the position has no relevant political power. I just think it easier to have a parliament. Mind you, I don't think it's some kind of deal breaker. In the end, political culture matters a lot more than anything else. Afterall, respect for the constitution is born from political culture, not the constitution itself. I mean the Chinese constitution is hell lot better than the Canadian or American one, but it's not worth the toilet paper it is written on because nobody follows it anyway.

@ Savage

All in all, the de facto head of the military in Commonwealth Realm countries is the prime minister. Although the royalty is technically still in control of our various pieces of military, with the Queen at the top (usually represented by her viceroy/governor general in the various countries because she'll be spending all her time in the UK), the PM is really the one that decides things. But how much in control is he actually of? Technically just 1/n, where n is the number of M Ps in parliament.

A president is actually pretty unstoppable because he's one guy. A prime minister is one guy in parliament who holds only a single vote. So really it makes no sense to say how "scary" it is for one guy to be both in charge of politics and the military. Their actual power is actually heavily curtailed by being in Parliament.

On the whole I like the idea of Constitutional Monarchy it because it deflects adulation from mere politicians onto a harmless figure. Our American custom where the POTUS stands at the head of the ceremony of state as well as the work of state encourages Potus' to take themselves to seriously. We effectively have a King and a Prime Minister in the same person and skate just a little to close to the danger that he will think himself an emperor

Moreover a pseudofamilial element in the state has more then a few advantages. Not least that it has historically been the normal way to rule humans and republics have been rare and vulnerable. I am rather of the opinion that human nature is a god that will not be mocked and being ruled by a machine of state can be demoralizing if there is nothing more traditional to balance it. Some say monarchy is "irrational" in the sense that it fills an office by hereditary rather then elective or appointive means and therefore is supposedly less meritocratic. But it is also irrational to not take people's emotional needs into account especially when they can be satisfied in a way that is harmless and which everyone admits is kind of silly including monarchs no doubt(in the Northern European dispensation of course). And especially when they are not only potentially beneficial when harnessed but potentially pernicious when not. It is the very fact that monarchy is kind of silly that allows it to gain a loyalty which is affectionate rather then resembling the idolatry given a Glorious Leader.

Furthermore monarchy is another check and balance. A monarch separate from the normal state yet possessing prestige as well as a large amount of contacts within the government reduces the danger of a united chief executive. If for instance a prime minister should become dangerously corrupt, a monarch is in a position to denounce him.

Also ceremony of state is more aesthetically pleasing when done by a monarch. Certain things like giving medals, visiting charity groups, etc look less classy when done by someone whom you suspect of wanting votes out of it. And even in the welcoming of foreign diplomats which is a role where self-interest is obvious, the hoary tradition hanging from a monarch gives it something of a panache.

Finely, national treasures like artifacts, museums, designated wilderness area and such, must be maintained. Having them related to the crown is a convenient way of doing so. Much paperwork is spent on how much supposed useless wealth is wasted on monarchy. What that does not take into account is how much of the wealth of a given royal family takes the form of things that would have to be preserved in another fashion. For instance it would be unthinkable to simply demolish Buckingham Palace, so preserving it as a museum would be mandatory for a republican government. A monarch can keep it going as a working mansion.

edited 8th Jan '15 9:48:10 AM by jastay3

I'm Dutch, and I support our monarchy, though I liked Queen Beatrix a lot better than our current King Willem-Alexander.

Part of why I'm a monarchist is simply "abolishing the monarchy would be a huge hassle for no good reason", but I do think there is one positive argument to be made for the institution: a good monarch is a unifying figure, a personification of the country with whom citizens of different colours, religions, classes and political persuasions can identify.

This is also where the difficulty lies, though. Historically, a king could get away with a lot of things because of his status. Scandals could be covered up; anyone with grievances against the king could be bought off or thrown in jail; and even if the king's outrageous behaviour was publicly known, who was going to tell him to stop? He was the king! He answered only to God, and God could be very forgiving.

For a modern king, it is exactly the other way around. Because of his role as a figurehead, he needs to have the self-control of a monk. Adultery, bribe-taking, friendly chats with dictators, questionable expenses – any misstep will not only damage his own reputation, but also his ability to unite or represent anyone. After all, who wants to be represented by a crook?

(For the record, the Dutch royal family has a history of all of those things, and the last two are still happening right now.)

So there you have the problem: monarchy as an institution has a long tradition of entitlement and Screw the Rules, I Make Them! but a modern monarch has to be irreproachable in order to do his job at all.

It's odd that people would want to get rid of a monarchy when the alternative is having an elected politician as head of state and a rich family that has nothing to do with the government.

Or you can just do away with that role entirely and not replace it. Like Switzerland. We neither have a monarch nor do we have a president. The "highest" position is the yearly rotating president of the federal council. But She is merely a primus inter pares and the actual head of government is the whole seven member council.

And we do have people of different religions, languages and political persuasion living just fine under such a government. We don't need to identify with a single person. We have seven people of five different parties representing us.

edited 29th Jan '15 11:06:45 AM by Antiteilchen

They sit in the corner and look at the paintings.

Yeah, but you forgot a cardinal rule most of Europe had been using for centuries when it comes to the confederations: the Swiss are weird and have always been weird.

Blame a harsher, easily isolated natural environment, a fairly high Mongol population injection which probably impacted the culture to some degree (alternatively, they could have settled because they could get the locals' existing ways better) and being left with distant, ever-changing overlords from other places who never did anything until they got, frankly, sick of being the parcel in other people's legal issues without being consulted.

I'm okay with monarchs. As a symbol and ultimate ambassador of the nation, they perform a very important function.

I'm just a bit worried about saddling an entire family with such responsibility from the day they were born. There's something incredibly sad about a family with three young daughters having to interrupt their ski vacation to stand in the cold and pose for the media for several hours.