Some monarchies have been re-established democratically, generally after a well-liked King was deposed by a despised foreign occupier or dictatorial faction.
Voters in those countries considered that dictators or foreigners had no business firing their Kings on the first place, so they voted the royals back into office. It's not common, but it has happened.
edited 14th Oct '11 12:49:39 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.Ideally, a constitutional monarch would be worked into the checks-and-balance system, where they don't have all that much power, there's some democratic avenue of removing them without having to just execute them outright (so, it could be done long before it's out of hand) and the military can oust them if it gets really bad...
I am now known as Flyboy.![]()
Generally, that's what constitutional monarchs do, except there's no way to depose them short of constitutional reform or revolution (Or the particular monarch being deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office).
Kings and queens rarely wield any sort of meaningful political power, so most people in modern democratic monarches typically feel they've got not much of a reason for going republican. Even if they would prefer a republic, establishment of one is considered a low priority.
edited 14th Oct '11 12:58:13 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.If they could recall a monarch with a significant majority, I don't see how it would be a problem at all...
I am now known as Flyboy.Well there's no reason to re-introduce one these days (unless yours was disposed by foreigners, as stated above). The real trick for monarchies of today is to redefine their role. Princess Diana's goal was to make the royalty relevant by having them pursue charity work, giving priority to international problems and generally work outside of the normal political process to bring attention to matters that populist leaders, due to the fickle nature of democracy, would simply ignore. They'd not actually have any legislative power so there's nothing to abuse but if for instance, one noticed mass poverty in a country was caused by some particular issue, they could point it out and make a media splash about it to bring it to the attention of voters so that they can then push the legislative body (usually a parliament) to do something about it.
I don't think I'd stand for a monarchy in my own country. I'm a meritocrat, through and through, and the idea of an inherited position of automatic comfy wealth for... not much at all, really... is ridiculous to me.
I wouldn't much care if other countries wanted to do it, though...
I am now known as Flyboy.![]()
In some systems, monarchs are given the ability to withold Royal Assent from legislation they consider particularly fucked up.
Typically it works like a veto, except legislation ain't scrapped: It's bounced back to Parliament. Typically, if they pass it again without modification they can enact it without the King/Queen's assent.
edited 14th Oct '11 1:07:46 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.Under most systems legislation passes anyway when the monarch doesn't sign (some don't allow the monarch to refuse to sign, even though they sometimes do it anyway in protest, causing a crisis). In any case it allows them to raise a ruckus and a media circus in protest.
IIRC, the Spanish King refused to give consent to a state of emergency between Madrid's 3-11 attacks and the 3-14 elections. The government was blaming a local terrorist group, while it'd actually been the islamists. The ruling PP government had supported the Iraq War effort, and the general public believed Spain's participation was the cause for the attacks. In fact, it cost'em the election. King Juan Carlos refused to cooperate in Aznar's cover-up, which would have allowed them to silence the press on those critical days or even postpone the election.
edited 15th Oct '11 7:08:31 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.Well it used to be about being conservative but they dropped that to become more relevant. Prince Charles for instance was raging about genetically modified foods at one point. I disagree with him (as in, I thought that the problem was that the technology was legislated into the hands of corporations instead of agricultural departments at universities) but you know, he was saying what he thought was right.
Monarchies are symbols of the unity of the country.
They can have their use, I think, especially if they are trained in their role since birth.
Personally, I would actually be mildly in favor to the return of Constitutional Monarchy to Italy (the referendum that caused its end was seedy at best), except for the fact that the current candidates to the role are horribly unfit for it.
edited 15th Oct '11 4:35:53 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Primarily, symbolism and a nod to heritage/history.
Also decent as an additional check/balance. Relic as she may be, the Queen has an important theoretical role in the government of Australia (and I suppose the UK and other Commonwealth nations), in that she acts as the third branch of government. So, while we could argue that there're all sorts of problems with the religious aspects of the monarchy, the fact that the monarch is not democractically elected, the fact that the royal family costs money, etc., without the monarch, we need a president (or something to that same effect as the executive branch of government). And frankly, a president still costs money, the change-over costs additional money, and whereas the Queen can act as head-of-state for many states at once, each new republic will need a single president, increasing the overall cost - that is to say, monetarily speaking, the Queen is better. What's more is that the religious aspects are almost entirely unnoticeable beyond say, a boring wedding or funeral or ceremony every so often, and the fact that the Queen isn't democratically elected is largely irrelevant given that her role in the state (that is, as an anti-partisan, apolitical, largely symbolic counterweight to parliament and the judiciary system) is best performed by an arbitrarily determined individual. This is a few parts "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and a few parts "you can't do any better", and a very few parts "RULE, BRITANNIA!". But that's basically it for me. Despite the problems with the monarchy, a change to something other than the monarchy (doing away with the independent executive branch entirely is out of the question) is going to be no improvement, if not outright disadvantageous.
I, for one, support our Queen of Australia, and therefore, necessarily, the continued existence of the Commonwealth headed by the Queen in England.
I'd also point out that the current Prince of Liechtenstein is a pretty cool guy:
He makes the case for democracy as the best form of government, which he sees China and Russia as transitioning towards although the path will be difficult for these nations. He also declared his role in a royal family as something that has legitimacy only from the assent of the people. He stated that government should be limited to a small set of tasks and abilities, writing that people "have to free the state from all the unnecessary tasks and burdens with which it has been loaded during the last hundred years, which have distracted it from its two main tasks: maintenance of the rule of law and foreign policy.”
edited 15th Oct '11 10:22:39 PM by ekuseruekuseru
See, I really dislike the idea of switching into a republic because a president will actually have power, likely eclipse the parliament or at least the prime minister and generally concentrate way too much power into the hands of a single person. With a Queen of Canada, she's a figurehead, with her viceroy through the Governor General, who is nothing but a rubber stamp committee of one. I think parliament is a very good way to run a country and once we have proportional representation, far better than a president-run republic because it spreads power over a bunch of intellectuals instead of a single possible ideologue.
Spaniard speaking here.
King Juan Carlos I had a *HUMONGOUSLY* relevant role after Franco died. It can be said that, without him, the transition to a democracy would have been much, MUCH harder.
Juan Carlos I played a bit the role of the "obedient lackey who will keep things as they were under Franco", but the moment Franco was put in the ground, he surprised basically everybody by actively steering Spain towards parliamentary, representative democracy. It transpired later on that he had actually been secretly in touch with pro-democracy activists in exile.
He also pretty much was the key factor in assuring that the attempted military putsch of 23 February 1981 failed. He basically went on TV, dressed in his uniform as supreme commander of the Spanish military, and said: "You, out there. STOP. THIS. NONSENSE. NOW". I was 13 at the time, but I remember being awake the whole night, and I remember very vividly that message, broadcast on all channels at 1AM.
(His role in stopping the putsch can be gauged when you see that the planners of a *second* putsch attempt, thwarted in October 1982 -just before the general elections- had plans for military units to actually invade the Zarzuela residence, where the King and his family live, and either make the King himself prisoner or kill him).
I still remember the comment of a communist MP the day after the 1981 putsch: "Thank goodness that we have a king —a president of the republic would not have been perceived by the military as having the authority to tell them to stop".
Juan Carlos I is reasonably popular in Spain, and many people appreciate him a lot for what he did. Of course, there are die-hard republicans who are adamantly against the institution of the monarchy, and it remains to be seen if his son Felipe will be as good a leader as his father was. But, by now, I would say that the king is basically well-liked in Spain.
GLUUUURK!Okay, let me see if I can make some arguments to defend my position.
I don't claim that monarchs are morally evil or corrupt in any way. They are, after all, human beings. Indeed, there have been plenty of benevolent or kind monarchs, including Juan Carlos I (the communist MP you're referring to is Santiago Carrillo, right?). I acknowledge his role in facilitating and securing Spanish democracy, and I think he's a good king, very down to Earth in his mannerisms ("¿por qué no te callas?"). He'd make a good president, if Spain were a republic. As Robespierre said, "...and for Louis I have neither love, nor hate; I hate only his crimes." I don't dislike the monarchs individually, just the institution behind them. If it were up to me, they'd be given the same priviledges as an ex-president, for them and their children, were the monarchy to be abolished.
Having said that, appealing to their charming or good natured personality is not an argument in favour of monarchy as an institution. It is an argument in favour of having them in a political office, which I don't disagree with. It should not be a permanent one however.
@breadloaf Parliaments do exist in republics. Their role is not diminished by the existence of a president, as the US can attest to (though this varies from republic to republic, though I don't see anything inherently wrong with giving some executive powers to the president). The difference is that you can elect your head of state, which is far more democratic. Any charitable activities that royals pursue are also done by NG Os. Indeed, their activities don't need to stop, nor would they stop being publicly important or relevant (the media would still publish stories on the ex-royals). But again, that's not an argument for monarchy. It's an argument for celebrities or statesmen that people admire to push for issues to be on the public agenda.
@ekuseruekuseru The costs of maintaining a presidency (assuming you need one at all, and don't rely on a prime minister instead) is not necessarily higher than the costs of a monarchy. The British monarchy for example is 112 times as expensive as the Irish presidency and twice as expensive as the French presidency. Even if it were true, then the solution is to cut costs, or get rid of the presidency, and let the prime minister be both head of the government and state. As for the immediate costs of abolishing the monarchy and creating a presidency, yes it would cost money, just like all policies or institutions. For me, it's a price worth paying in the name of democracy.
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."
Isn't letting some dude be the Prime Minister and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces at the same time kind of a bad idea?
Because there are a lot of bad things that can happen when the same dude commands a legislative majority (and have his will rubber-stamped by Congress) and has direct control over the armed forces at the same time.
edited 19th Oct '11 10:04:27 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.The thing about Spain is that there are many who aren't Monarchistas so much as they are Juan Carlistas. Which is fine with me, hearing him tell Chavez to shut his fat mouth made that particular monarch A-OK in my book.
If we're going to have a position of Official National Spokesperson/Mascot, and we're going to make that position hereditary, do we need to invest so much money and political power with it? I mean, it's all well and good to say telling Hugo Chavez to shut up justifies the monarchy, but the implication there is that the position is obsolete once Chavez leaves office or dies.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
![]()
That depends. The President of the USA is the Head of Government, Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces. Since the USA hasn't become a straw dictatorship, then I must assume that it can't be that bad to do so. Then again each state has it's own unique political culture and structure, so Your Mileage May Vary.
![]()
I agree that most Spanish are Juancarlistas. It's quite likely that support for the Spanish monarchy won't be quite as high as it is now once "el Príncipe de Asturias" Felipe takes the throne. Ideally Felipe himself would propose to abdicate and ask the future government to start a transition towards a republic. The ex-monarch looks good, the government looks good, democracy flourishes and we (the Spanish) all live happily ever after... by going back to watching Sálvame. Certainly having a monarchy solely because the individual monarch happens to be a Dogged Nice Guy is not a valid justification to keep such an institution.
edited 19th Oct '11 10:51:28 AM by germi91
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."@ Germi
I reread my post to see if I made the assertion that parliaments don't exist under presidents but I didn't (whew). My point was that the president will inevitably eclipse the Prime Minister because they're head of state and politically relevant. I'm looking at France, Germany, Russia... although China is weird. Chinese Prime Minister has more face-time than the President for some reason.
And I don't like the concentration of so much power into a single person.
My argument for Royalty is that they have very little political power but the ability to get a lot of face time, and are institutionalised into our government. So when the next regime forms whenever an election is called, we'd still have a head of state. If the things they say are stupid, they get ignored. If the things they say are intelligent, people listen.
Do we really need a monarchy for that? No. But we already have one, so why would I set up a new institution to replace one we already have? That's how I see it.

There's three out of twelve European monarchies that have a re-established monarch, out of a total of 50 countries, nearly all of which had a monarchy at some point.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.