 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Republicanism |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| No, not the American party.
I'm talking about whether monarchies should become republics. I guess there's a lot of Europeans here who live in monarchies, plus there's Ziff in her Majesty's Dominion of Canadia. You all seem a lot happier with constitutional monarchies than many Australians including myself. I believe as a general principle that countries should become republics rather than monarchies, but more specifically I believe very fervently that Australia needs to become a republic, for several reasons. First, on a philosophical level I dislike monarchy and its inherent elitism and heirarchical nature. All that pomp and privlege and meaningless titles and so forth, it just bugs me. The ultimate soveriegn should be the people, not some inbred figureheads who got there by dint of a lucky birth. Second, there's the small Commonwealth-specific matter of our Queen living on the other side of the planet on a shitty little island in the North Atlantic. It'd be nice to have our own head-of-state, rather than just the Queen and her proxy the Governor General. Third, practical reasons relating to the structure and nature of our political system. The Governor General has gotten directly involved in Australian politics before, dismissing a government in 1975 in very controversial circumstances. The Governor General has very wide reserve powers that give the power to dismiss govenrments and appoint them, command the armed forces, and so forth. It's a hangover from a time when the colonial structures of Great Britain were basically military in nature... especially here in a place which was founded on white slave labor. There is, of course, the question of what model to use. I don't like the American model and neither to most Australians. I don't want a strong and powerful president who's almost impossible to remove like in the USA and Latin America. I like the idea of the supremacy of the legislature. Ireland, India and Germany have such models, with the president largely ceremonial. It's been suggested that an appointed president can be better deprived of mandate than an elected one, I don't mind the idea of parliament with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority appointing the president (big majorities to ensure bipartisan consensus). The problem, though, is that Australians won't stand for a president who isn't elected because of that whole hating politicians thing. And, an elected president can tend to give them a political mandate like in France, as well as discourage people who don't like the hurly burly of elections, from running. It's a quandary. One idea I've seen is to elect a presidential assembly who's job is to vote with a 3/4ths consensus on a list of nominated candidates... I dunno. I'd settle for an elected president, as long as the constitution made them easy to dismiss, explicitly laid-out all their powers (unlike the present Governor General situation) and specifically deprived them of powers. (edited by Arwon on 01-04-07 08:48 PM) (edited by Arwon on 01-04-07 08:53 PM) |
|||
Silvershield   580    Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonHahahahahaha  .
Anyhow, on a serious note, I was under the impression that a monarchical position in most any First World country nowadays is exclusively ceremonial, but you seem to suggest otherwise. What legitimate power do those people really have? |
|||
DahrkDaiz Nipper Plant U wan hax Mario?!  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| First: the President is not all powerful. His powers include basically commanding the military, signing/vetoing bills into law and nominating supreme court justices. Each of these basic powers, of course, extends far beyond what is initially seen. However, the President is not hard to remove from office. We get a chance to remove him every 4 years. And really, 4 years is a rather short term considering justices get their position for life and senators/representatives's terms are 6 and 2, but are unlimited to the number they may serve (correct me if I'm wrong). The system of the American democracy actually works well on paper, but a lot of plans look good on paper but are executed poorly. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| That is exactly why Aussies and Canucks don't care for the monarchy. We don't want it to have power, but it is the philosophical implications of having "god empowered" monarchs hanging over our heads in a ceremonial position to whom we are direct "subjects"
Their legitimate power is entertaining the English who read tabloids. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by ArwonHahahahahaha Depends on the country. In Australia, the Queen's representative is the Governor General, as I said, and mostly ceremonial as in other British Dominions like Canada and New Zealand... BUT in 1975 during a constitutional crisis, the G-G exercised executive powers to dismiss a government, call elections, and install a caretaker government. It was a rather painful ordeal that could've gotten a lot messier than it did. This dismissal, known as The Dismissal in Australia, was the Crown acting with real temporal political power, and there's no reason it can't happen again. Which given that it's a non-elected representative of a monarch half a world away, is pretty galling. The thing to understand about Westminster systems in particular is that a great deal of what happens is unwritten, purely done by convention and precedent and so what is written on paper is only part of the story. The Prime Minister himself is actually a product of these unwritten conventions, it's not a position described in the Australian constitution (for that matter, our constitution is purely procedural, no bill of rights or anything in it... and it's so outdated it still lists New Zealand as a member). The constitution gives the Governor General, as representative of the Crown, great power. The unwritten conventions against the G-G taking a day-to-day role in government is all that keeps the Governor General, the Queen's representative, from exercising this wide variety of discretionary reserve powers. It's a flawed arrangement that has gone wrong in the past. Overhauling the process and the political structures, renewing the constitution, through the creation of a republic, is a great way to deal with all this, and it dovetails neatly with the need to ditch outdated symbolism. Because that's the key here--symbolism. As you say, many monarchs are purely symbolic and ceremonial. But I say that even if there's no practical reason, becoming a republic is still a good thing to do. It doesn't matter if they're purely ceremonial or purely decorative or whatever, even as a ceremonial symbol it is distasteful and anarchronistic... they're still kings and queens, they're still social elites with no purpose, and we don't need them, they don't deserve the power, prestige and wealth they have purely for winning a genetic lottery. Why should any citizen of a modern democratic state have to show deference and subjugation to anyone, especially someone who has done nothing to earn it? The fact that here, it's a foreigner on the throne doesn't help, either. Monarchy is at odds with things like individualism, liberty, the rule of law, and so forth... this is evident in the fact that to even remain remotely acceptable to anyone, monarchies have had to be watered down into ineffectiveness. Why not finish the job and get rid of them? DahrkDaiz: Relatively speaking to other republics (outside of Latin America which use similar systems to America), the United States system has a powerful president. He's very hard to remove aside from election times because impeachment is such a difficult process. Elsewhere the legislature has greater primacy, and in many, the Prime Minister (head of the legislative body, equivalent of your House Majority Leader and/or Speaker) is the primary face of government. What you say is right though, most republicans don't want the American system because of its various flaws. (edited by Arwon on 01-04-07 11:50 PM) (edited by Arwon on 01-04-07 11:53 PM) |
|||
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
I agree that republics are better than monarchies, though the former British Empire monarchies are largely ceremonial, as has already been said in this thread. It probably is best to cement once and for all the independence of former British colonies, the disassembly of the Monarchs, etc. I don't really like your characterization of Great Britain, though. I also don't see why you would call the Queen a "foreigner" with such conviction. Unless you are black, I doubt you are a native Australian yourself. 
While it is, of course, not good to have an all powerful executive (which is not at all what the US has), I do none the less see a good reason for it. How many people get involved in local elections? Every American knows the name George Bush, but many Americans don't know the name of their senator or congressman. Voting for the president at least puts his election in the hands of the people. If you have your legislators selecting a president, you have much less citizen involvement. Instead of a President being chosen by the people, you have a president chosen by legislators who are chosen by the people, but a much smaller percentage of the people. I doubt you will get more than 25% voter turn out. But you might be OK with that. In fact, a weak government may be your preference. I believe a strong executive would have an easier time managing a war or negotiating with hostile countries than a representative chosen by a large legislative body chosen by a small percentage of the population. Still, Republics are good. |
|||
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| Republics are good? There's a big chance for lobbying Senators. That's disguised corruption.
Democracy is the way to go. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo I'm a fifth generation white Australian with predominantly Irish Catholic roots. The attitude that Britain is somehow less a "foreign" country shits me, because firstly it recalls things that resulted from delusions of unbreakable kinship ranging from the insanity of the First World War, to the Brisbane Line, to the British testing nuclear weapons in South Australia, to the fact that we didn't even have our own passports for 50 years after becoming a country... and secondly because Britain stopped having a special relationship with us a long time ago. These days at the airports we stand in the "other" queue (rather than the EU one) alongside Bhutanese and Venezuelans. That, and the fact that the majority if illegal immigrants are British citizens who overstay their visas somehow escapes notice, even as we're instituting draconian policies directed at everyone else. The Queen is a citizen of a country half way around the world who's been here maybe twice, her first loyalties are to another country. She's every bit a foreigner. Just because she's white and speaks English and her country's flag is on our flag shouldn't make it less so. Would you be happy if your president was a New Zealander who lived in Auckland?
Firstly, you people are misunderstanding my description of the president as "powerful". I'm not saying they have ABSOLUTE power, but relative to many other republics the president has substantially more. Ultimately the difference is that they're not beholden to the legislature and they exercise significant day-to-day executive functions. Most Australians can't name our executive now, but we still have the same name recognition and personal politics stuff. Not everyone can name their local member of parliament but we can all name the Member for Bennelong, because he's the PM. You don't need a powerful president to create interest and name recognition. We just focus on the Prime Minister instead, as do other countries with mostly ceremonial, non-political presidents. I'd hope in an Australian Republic this'd mostly remain the same. Further, in this style of system, the executive is mostly in the hands of a cabinet of ministers rather than the presidential office, so they're not necessarily any "weaker". If that were the case, our system would be weaker now. My main objection to the presidential system of the United States is that he exercises significant day-to-day authority and is, essentially, a political figure with a lack of real accountability short of invoking criminal proceedings. Further, it encourages extremely polarised and adversarial politics because the presidential office is such a coveted prise that only one person can have... parliamentary systems are more flexible and fluid. Also, this "presidential" style of republic has a far higher rate of failure (the US is practically the only one to never have fallen into dictatorship) than republics with legislative supremacy. Honestly, any sensible electoral system would have dismissed and replaced a leader with as little competence and popular support as George Bush, by now. I'm a far bigger fan of the Irish or Indian style Parliamentary model, countries which do elect a president, but one who basically stays out of day-to-day politics and remains more ceremonial and above the fray, and one who, more importantly, is beholden to the legislature... This is partly because they're much closer to the Westminster style parliamentary democracy Australia... hell they're ideal models (also South Africa) because they've already made transitions from British-ish systems to republics. We don't need to throw our political culture or traditions out in order to become a Republic. Also, we have compulsory voting and 90%+ turnout, so the point about voter turnout is kinda moot. (: (edited by Arwon on 01-05-07 05:43 AM) |
|||
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6284 days |
| ||
| Well, I live in a monarchy, although a monarchy that is styled a bit different from the Commonwealth-one.
The kings of Norway has had no official political power ever since parliamentarism was introduced in 1883. Before that, the king would appoint the prime minister and his cabinet, after that, the prime minister and the cabinet was formed on the basis of the representatives in Parliament. The king still did the formal appointing as we have never, not even to this day, made parliamentarism an official part of our constitution, but this is only a formal thing and the king has no real say in the matter. When this is said, though, the king has in fact intervened in Norwegian politics twice since the introduction of parliamentarism. Both were by Haakon VII (reign 1905-1957). First, in 1928 when, after an election in which neither the Labour party, the Social Liberal party or the Conservative party got a majority. For a while people were fearing that Norway would not get a prime minister, as they all refused to work together, but the king then stepped in and appointed the leader of the Labour party prime minister. The Labour party's government lasted for about a week, when the Social Liberals and the Conservatives were able to work together to form a government since basically anything was better than a Labour minister, they thought. The second time was when the king declared that he refused the German ultimatum of surrendering Norway to Germany in 1940. As a result of "The King's No" (as his answer is now remembered as and being romanticized as) the Norwegian resistance fighters would fight on for 5 years during the German occupation of Norway. I'm sure there would have been a resistance movement without the king, but it would not have been as big. The king was the gathering symbol that all Norwegians, no matter what political allegiance, could gather under and fight for. The king's value as a symbol in this respect is important. People wouldn't fight in the same manner for a president they didn't want elected. The king becomes the romantic image of Norway, and the one unifying force in times of trouble. For king and country, and all that. But enough about the history lesson. I guess I am what you would call a republican in principle, but a monarchist from a pragmatic point of view. Principally, I agree with Arwon that the thought that a person should be born into the elite is appaling. Pragmatically, though, the constitutional monarchic system of Norway works great. First of all, the royal family here ain't all that "high up and elite", not in the same way as in Britain. They are among the poorest royal families in all of Europe (that's not to say they don't have a high standard of living, though), and they've always acted in a very "common" way. During the oil crisis of 1973, the then king of Norway, Olav V, used the public transportation system to go places, opting to help save gasoline just like everyone else in the world. As the story goes, he would have payed for it himself, had it not been for the other passengers stepping in to pay for him. This special relationship that the royal family enjoys with the people is probably the reson the monarchy has survived in Norway, where colective thinking, communitarianism and a general "don't think you're any better than anybody else"-belief system exists stronger than any other part of the world. Besides, I agree with Arwon that if one were to go republican rather than have a monarchy, the president would have to be a figurehead such as in Germany, not someone who holds a great deal of power such as in the US. However, I must say that I can't really see why we should change from having a king as symbolic figurehead to a president. The king has trained for the job his entire life, the king has the support of all the people, not just the people of his political party (the way I understand, being elected president in countries where the president is a figurehead is sort of a "thank you" from your party for years of long and faithful serving), and the expenses would probably stay about the same (this of course is very different from Britain, where I understand that the royal family makes a lot of money. Around here, the money the king gets from the state is about what I'd assume a president of this country would be making). So, yeah, the monarchy is an anachronism, it stems from a time when some people were "favored by God", more than others. However, in this country, the system works great. So why change it to something that will probably only cause more political divides and problems? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Alkis You clearly don't understand the terms we are using here. Both Republics and Constitutional Monarchies can be largely democratic. Read up on it.
I don't believe in compulsory voting. I know far too many stupid people who don't vote, and I'm quite frankly glad that they don't vote. (edited by Koryo on 01-05-07 01:03 PM) |
|||
Ailure Mr. Shine I just want peace...  Since: 11-17-05 From: Sweden Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
I don't really have a strong opinion about monarchism. I don't really mind having a king, but it's not like I would miss him if he's gone. And as long the political system isn't changed too much... I like the parliament system.  |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6320 days Last view: 6320 days |
| ||
| To counter, how democratic is any organized government? By nature an organized government will exclude some sort of view or people. I say ditch the queen, though. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| No government will ever function without offending, ignoring, or otherwise harming one group or another. You can never make everyone happy, nor do you want to. But leaning toward the majority at the expense of the small minorities does not make a government non democratic. | |||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| The irony of this thread is so overwhelming that it isn't funny. Does anyone else see this? | |||
Crashman Grizzo  Since: 12-26-05 From: Maine Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6316 days |
| ||
| I think the British got it right, with a king or Queen and a parliment to back it all up. Frankly, I would rather be one of the Queen's subjects these days than a resident of the US. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| @SamuraiX
You can't prove your intelligence by acting aloof and condescending. If you would like to point out the hypocrisy that you see, please feel free to do so. @Crashman I don't agree that constitutional monarchy is the best government system (assuming that's what you meant by "got it right") and few here agree with you. Monarchies are (or should be) relics of the past. While Great Britain is very free and democratic, I think a republic form of government would be better. Still, I think there are far more pressing concerns in the world, such as creating democracies in countries that have none, rather than slightly improving the democracies that already exist. But if it is someone's quest to transform the constitutional monarchies into republics, then by all means do it. I think your cheap shot at the US might have been received as slightly more substantial had you offered any... substance to go along with it. I hate no one. |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Republicanism |
| |
