Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One issue is that ..... where the head of state has an elected political/executive role and is either not accepted or badly accepted by a large percentage of the country, who represents the nation?
That person does not have to be a monarch. But it may be desirable to have a head of state who is not beholden to any political party or interest group.
This thread has attracted the confused responses usual whenever the topic comes up among (a mostly) American audience.
Some of the responses primarily reflect two reactions which can be easily disposed of: anglophobia and egalitarianism. Anglophobia is obviously pointless to any discussion of the advantages of constitutional monarchy as a form of government over republican forms: not only is it blatantly stupid, but it also ignores the fact that the United Kingdom is not the only constitutional monarchy in the world.
Objections based on egalitarianism ("no one should be raised above anyone else") are also not germane: every nation or state will have an head of state, even in cases such as the Swiss Confederation where the headship of state is exercised collectively. Simply by virtue of their office the head of state is "raised above" other citizens: this is inherent in the function.
That leaves two serious questions, which shouldn't be conflated but usually are. The first is the superiority of systems which distinguish between the roles of head of state and head of government over systems which conflate the two roles. The second is whether, among systems which divide the two roles, a hereditary head of state is superior to one who is elected or selected.
The argument for separating the two roles (which, recall, makes up the greater part of the case made by the OP) is clear enough but unfamiliar to Americans. Almost all systems which divide the roles allocate the functional executive duty to a democratically-elected political leader, while confiding the ceremonial and representative duty to a "figurehead".
The only real question in this case is whether executive power should better be entrusted to the same person exercising ceremonial or representational power. Because, increasingly in a media-saturated age, ceremony or representation is power (see under "Riefenstahl, Leni" for extreme examples).
It seems clear that one reason the American presidency has increased in power in the modern age, since Roosevelt's innovation of the "fireside chat", is its greater ability to wield the ceremonial and representational powers of the office. One clear argument in favor of separating the roles of heads of state and of government is to deprive one political faction of this undue advantage over their competitors: in our media-driven age, allowing the leader of one party to increase his standing by wearing a second hat as symbolic head of the nation, by for instance presiding over military funerals or greeting sailors on the flightdeck of aircraft carriers, is an unfair and possibly dangerous way of warping the democratic process.
But if the argument for separating the roles is accepted, then one must confront the next question: which is better, an elected ceremonial headship of state, such as the Irish or Italian presidency, or an hereditary headship, such as the Danish or Spanish monarchies. The arguments typically break down as follows: raising an individual above all other citizens to be ceremonial head of state by election is more faithful to the democratic principles of modern Western society.
The problem is that in a system with divided headship, the office of head of state is not only ceremonial. It is also responsible for some hopefully rare but crucial tasks, usually involving a mediating or "umpire" role, and in any ultimate crisis, as the last defense of constitutional government.
In other words, in addition to ceremonially representing the state or nation, the head of state is also charged in most Western democracies with a crisis-management role when all other safety-valves fail. In the words of a Canadian senator and constitutional scholar, the ceremonial head of state is a fire-extinguisher: most of the time, it's simply a shiny, brightly-painted object which is mounted for all to see, but if the house should ever catch fire you need it desperately.
On this last point, the argument is also clear enough: elected ceremonial heads of state rarely have the moral authority to act successfully in a profound crisis, while recent history provides several examples of constitutional "figurehead" monarchs doing exactly that: King Juan Carlos of Spain's personal intervention against the Francoist coup d'etat in 1981, for example. There have been a few elected ceremonial presidents who have gained the moral authority to carry out such an act, but for the most part their authority is diminished by the fact of their election rather than enhanced.
Therefore, setting aside silly things like whether King George VI ate hotdogs, the real issues in this question are whether separating the ceremonial and executive roles in government is a good idea, and if so, how to select the ceremonial head. In my opinion, separating ceremonial "media power" from executive power is a crucial check on government: in fact, in the modern age, much more important than any of the now-archaic checks on executive power built into America's aging constitution. And on the subsidiary question of how best to select a ceremonial head of state, the residual "constitutional emergency" powers exercised by most Western heads of state decides the question in favor of the greater moral authority (not to mention often longer experience) of a hereditary head over an elected one.
A figurehead would be nice, yes, to make the position of President of the United States less of a popularity contest, and reduce its power. (I'm hoping it's not a popularity contest, but it probably is at least somewhat, or politicians wouldn't try so hard to be likeable.)
Given that I have no idea why it would be uplifting to the spirits of the citizens of a nation to pressure some unfortunate/extremely fortunate (depending on what the person desires) person who happened to be born to a particular family, to serve in a position consisting of endless ceremony, which serves no purpose other than lifting the citizen's spirits anyway...I'm going to go ahead and view the concept of choosing a figurehead by birth as not worthy of discussion...no offense. If your people appreciate that sort of thing...great
Realistically though...I think this is a dead end. There is a small chance that Americans might elect some kind of super celebrity they vote for based on traits they view as most ideal, to be a figurehead. More likely than not they'll just assume the government tampered with their votes in order to elect whoever agrees the most with the views of current politicians.
The ideal solution, of course, would be to somehow encourage citizens to totally ignore likeability and charm when choosing their politicians. When in doubt, choose the one with the back hump, who smells funny...or perhaps we could even somehow remove some of the ceremonial factors from the position. Is one person as ceremonial head of state even necessary?
A figurehead would be nice, yes, to make the position of President of the United States less of a popularity contest, and reduce its power.
A quick clarification of my view on this point: the OP introduced a discussion of the "advantage of a Monarchy", saying nothing about whether the United States should be one. I argue that a division of roles between head of state and head of government is superior, and further that within such a system a hereditary head of state has sufficient advantages over an elected one to settle the question in the former's favor.
I am not recommending such a system for the United States, despite its theoretical and practical superiority. (And despite the obtuse assumptions of certain other posters in this thread, present company excepted). For one thing, the United States made its constitutional bed, and now it has to lie in it for better or worse. For another, the practical obstacles to changing the American constitution are so great as to make the project laughable.
For a third, just because the United States has irrevocably chosen its peculiar and exotic constitutional form, doesn't mean the rest of the world is barred from thinking about the question. Other countries have constitutions which are still evolving, not mired in the age of powdered wigs and knee-breeches, and nothing says that American exceptionalism forbids other people from thinking freely.
A quick clarification of my view on this point: the OP introduced a discussion of the "advantage of a Monarchy", saying nothing about whether the United States should be one. I argue that a division of roles between head of state and head of government is superior, and further that within such a system a hereditary head of state has sufficient advantages over an elected one to settle the question in the former's favor.
I am not recommending such a system for the United States, despite its theoretical and practical superiority. (And despite the obtuse assumptions of certain other posters in this thread, present company excepted). For one thing, the United States made its constitutional bed, and now it has to lie in it for better or worse. For another, the practical obstacles to changing the American constitution are so great as to make the project laughable.
For a third, just because the United States has irrevocably chosen its peculiar and exotic constitutional form, doesn't mean the rest of the world is barred from thinking about the question. Other countries have constitutions which are still evolving, not mired in the age of powdered wigs and knee-breeches, and nothing says that American exceptionalism forbids other people from thinking freely.
Nope, I do not believe the USA could ever become a Constitutional Monarchy for one very good reason, your political parties are too far apart ever to agree on something as important as to whom will be referee.
One issue is that ..... where the head of state has an elected political/executive role and is either not accepted or badly accepted by a large percentage of the country, who represents the nation?
That person does not have to be a monarch. But it may be desirable to have a head of state who is not beholden to any political party or interest group.
I agree. I like the idea of the French semi-presidential system. I think our head of state should be a president, but elected to an one, ten year term and the election can't be held during the same year as the election for head of government. We wouldn't even have to change titles or anything. The President is head of state while the Vice President is head of government while the President has similar powers and responsibilities as the British monarch. But, a hereditary monarch in 2013? That is so early 20th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby
Nope, I do not believe the USA could ever become a Constitutional Monarchy for one very good reason, your political parties are too far apart ever to agree on something as important as to whom will be referee.
Plus the fact that the idea of a monarchy is inherently un-American to begin with. Presidential systems are the norm in North and South America, not the exception. Only the English speaking countries, minus the US, plus Greenland, have constitutional monarchies in place.
It was amusing to hear people who criticised Bush/Obama as being unpatriotic, in the UK and other realms it is seen as being patriotic to criticise the PM and other ministers.
For they are just the hired help .
The Crown persists in the UK (and 15 other Commonwealth Realms that have voluntarily kept the shared monarch) for several reasons.
1. The Crown separates patriotism from politics. No British politician has ever been accused of being unpatriotic when they criticise a Prime Minister. Something that often happens in the US.
2. The Prime Minister may be master of the political landscape and have the power to fire nuclear weapons, but authority for that power is vested in the Crown and the Constitution, not in him. He may issue orders but it is still considered “advice†that the Crown is bound to act on.
He must address the Queen and senior members of the royal family as Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Ma’am, or Sir. He gets’ a townhouse and a small country retreat, while the Royal Family has multiple palaces. And while the Queen is first in precedence at all state occasions, the Prime Minister comes in 19th. It teaches humility to politicians, who are not noted for their humility.
3. The Crown makes Prime Ministers and cabinet members disposable. Because a President is both Head of State (symbolic leader of the nation) and Head of Government (in charge of running the government). They are very difficult to get rid of when scandal hits. Had Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton been Prime Ministers they would have been dumped in a matter of weeks instead of dragging the issue out for months.
And while a King is difficult to force out, when push comes to shove an unsuitable King has been forced out, twice, in 1688 and 1936.
4. What is now the UK had a republic. Parliament killed King Charles I and established Cromwell as Lord Protector (effectively President-for-Life). England was mired in war and became a military dictatorship until the Restoration. Not a good record.
Thank you for this excellent post.
Most people who criticize the UK for their continual approval of having a King or Queen are usually lacking in knowledge of the advantages of that form of government.
Another advantage is that the Prime Minister has additional time to take care of the business he was elected for because the Royals take over most of the protocol trips and entertaining, etc.
A quick clarification of my view on this point: the OP introduced a discussion of the "advantage of a Monarchy", saying nothing about whether the United States should be one. I argue that a division of roles between head of state and head of government is superior, and further that within such a system a hereditary head of state has sufficient advantages over an elected one to settle the question in the former's favor.
I would think that would depend on the culture of the nation in question. In South Africa, for example, I would suspect such a division of roles would not work out well (unless the figurehead was Nelson Mandela, but he won't be around for eternity).
Not that I've ever been there, but South Africa seems like a nation with an uglier past and brighter future. With the still powerful white minority and, from what I've heard, a lingering potential for incidents of genocide, I would think that the populace would view a figurehead negatively. I would think the populace would not want a person who represents what it means to be a South African to be a member of their government at all. A white figurehead might be associated with the old apartheid. A black figurehead might be viewed as a puppet of the government, used for propaganda.
Some peoples might remember old wounds well enough, or be heterogeneous enough, that they will not be willing to accept a head of state who has not already done real actions to assist the populace....Or perhaps such peoples have histories they desire to forget, rather than remember through a figurehead symbolizing their history or the history of their oppressors.
But you must understand, we must defend our lands from the redcoats, or they will cross the sea, and force us to drink tea and use the metric system, rather than using whatever our current system of measurement is called....Perhaps we should ask the redcoats....They're good at remembering that type of thing.
We don't know why we use our system of measurement (whatever it's called) and we don't know we like coffee so much. None of us like the taste of it, and it's unhealthy. Presumably we drink it because it's addictive...but that's not the point.
You should probably not be citing dicta from cases and cases that are bad law in an attempt to prove a point.
You might have identified which cites were "bad law" or incorrect, before attempting to distract the reader from the SCARY DANGEROUS THOUGHT that Americans were sovereigns UNLIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD who are subjects of their governments.
I agree. I like the idea of the French semi-presidential system. I think our head of state should be a president, but elected to an one, ten year term and the election can't be held during the same year as the election for head of government. We wouldn't even have to change titles or anything. The President is head of state while the Vice President is head of government while the President has similar powers and responsibilities as the British monarch. But, a hereditary monarch in 2013? That is so early 20th century.
Plus the fact that the idea of a monarchy is inherently un-American to begin with. Presidential systems are the norm in North and South America, not the exception. Only the English speaking countries, minus the US, plus Greenland, have constitutional monarchies in place.
The "norm"? Canada being...? That other American nation, larger than yours, sitting smack dab on top of you in what we're used to calling North America.
I may however, be confused in what you're trying to say here. Minus ~ plus wise.
Thank you for this excellent post.
Most people who criticize the UK for their continual approval of having a King or Queen are usually lacking in knowledge of the advantages of that form of government.
Another advantage is that the Prime Minister has additional time to take care of the business he was elected for because the Royals take over most of the protocol trips and entertaining, etc.
It is a pity that so many Americans forget or are not taught that George Washington held a commission in His Majesty's army.
It is noticeable that European countries that have a Monarchy tend to do well, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Luxemburg all have high standards of living.
Even though Spain has it's difficulties King Carlos is the glue that holds the country together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
