The British monarchy

Agreed! Certainly what is over-looked by most of the intelligent monarchist arguments I read. Monarchism is credited with stability and many other things, but it has not always been so. UK history is nothing if not heavily blood-stained. I'm not saying that will happen again, but I hope to see the people of Britain wake up when confronted with Charles III, rather than someone with the undoubted poise and gravitas of Elizabeth II. In fact, as an ardent republican I would be only too happy to accept Elizabeth Windsor as head of state, if she would put herself up for election (which she would certainly win) to a ceremonial post similar to that of Ireland or Israel. I would probably even vote for her.

I disagree - given their unmitigated and relentless coverage of the Royal Wedding (thank god for Obama getting Bin Laden, which was indeed fair and balanced). They persist with the Jubilee too. The RW made the Brits feel as if they were part of anything, when in fact they are just poor and cannot speak English (well, I tend to find the Germans speak better English than the English lol).

As far as I can see, Uruguay, Liechtenstein and Switzerland are the most stable, prosperous nations in their region, free from dictatorships, nutters and madman which plagued representative government (Fox would have elevate Der Fuhrer). Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington state all seem to be doing fine even with Fox News - in a real direct democracy, however, you can regulate unlimited corporate finance. But the U.S. is not a democracy.

There is nothing to be terrified. Name me four initiatives which have ever harmed a specific minority group alone(economically, financially or physically), citing empirical data.

You got me! I can't name you any initiative, let alone empirical data! I am not a poli Sci person, nor even terribly politically minded. I study people. I get into their heads. I stay out when people's heads get together (what politics is). I read you guys to try to educate myself on a subject I am terribly ignorant about. You and some others write most intelligently, and so I follow your posts. I don't agree with you guys all the time, but I learn something each time I read.

I think Fox News stinks. Three exposures were enough. Never again.

I enjoy watching DWTV, a English language German Station in America. I agree, they speak good English. And they don't have junk like TV in America.

What can I tell you related to politics? I don't see what choice there is but give Obama another 4 years come November. Only a dumbed down nation can in all seriousness sit and listen to any of the GOP candidates. And you say there is nothing to be terrifie of. Are you American?

I also enjoy DWTV (actually, they ran a few shows on direct democracy - 7 German states now have it).

Are you American?

For better or worse, no. Although my monarchist friends tell me when they raised the issue of the Crown when they were in the US, they were told off and basically frowned upon because the concept is so alien to them.

America, I believe, would function so much better with a constitutional monarch, as Alexander Hamilton predicted.

Direct democracy and moi as monarch. Works well.

What does a monarch do in a direct democracy besides waving hands?

What does a monarch do in a direct democracy besides waving hands?
Good question.
If along the British model, just hand-waving. So nothing useful or meaningful.
In Liechtenstein, the Prince actively comments on policy; recommends to voters how they should actually vote (acting as a voting cue) and can veto laws (all at the consent of the people themselves, of course)
Article 13
Not less than 1,500 Liechtenstein citizens shall have the right to submit a reasoned motion of no-confidence against the Reigning Prince. Parliament shall issue a recommendation on such a motion at its next meeting and order a popular vote (article 66 paragraph 6). If the motion of no-confidence is adopted in the popular vote, it shall be communicated to the Reigning Prince for consideration according to the Law on the Princely House. Within six months, the Reigning Prince shall announce to Parliament the decision made in accordance with the Law on the Princely House
Art 64
1) The right of initiative with regard to legislation, i.e., the right of introducing bills, shall appertain to:
a) the Reigning Prince, in the form of Government proposals; b) Parliament itself; c) Liechtenstein citizens eligible to vote, under the conditions set forth in the following provisions
Article 122
1) The present Constitutional deed shall be universally binding after its promulgation as the fundamental law of the country
2) Amendments to or universally binding interpretations of this fundamental law may be proposed either by the Government or by Parliament or by way of an initiative (article 64). They shall require unanimity of the Members of Parliament present or a majority of three quarters of the Members present at two consecutive meetings of Parliament voting in favour, a popular vote if called for (article 66), and in any event the subsequent assent of the Reigning Prince, with the exception of the procedure to abolish the monarchy (article 113)
[See also Art 66 and 113 - on initiative and referenda on legislation or constitutional amendments]
[See also Art 80 where The Prince can issue a motion of no confidence in the Government]
http://www.llv.li/verfassung-e-01-02-09.doc.
See also:
http://www.royaltyinthenews.com/2011/09/11/liechtenstein-prince-threaten...
http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2011/turtle-bay-un/the-prince-of-liech...
http://www.romereports.com/palio/the-crown-and-the-cross-royal-families-...

I am almost sorry I asked - Just kidding!!

Thanks!

I got the Constitution part: Article 122 (1) The present Constitutional deed shall be universally binding after its promulgation as the fundamental law of the country.

Someone or some body still has to read and interpret the Constitutional deed, wouldn't that be true? Who/which would that be?*

* I am assuming no document could be written so well that in the case of a "right" spelled out in the Constitution the contour and extent of its penumbre appear with laser-sharp precision. We know words do not accomplish that kind of precision. Nor the human brain. There is also the dimension of change over time in the way people think and therefore the way they read and interpret the words in the Constitution. What then? You say the (best) solution is "direct democracy" - Let the people vote. That's fine. What if the people all watch Fox News?

We have this thing called federalism. Just vote with your feet. Try Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington state for starters :)

Although while some % of the population watches it, I'm sure this is dispersed throughout the country so it probably a very small percentage and Fox does not put initiatives on the ballot - I doubt they even cover most of them.

Cloudwarrior,

I wasn’t putting words in your mouth – anyone can read your comment and my comment and make their own determination. You start off with the premise you were a Republican (in the Australian sense), then you finish telling us how much the U.S. spends. Read in the context of support for a directly-elected Head of State (the most popular model in Oz judging by the poll), one cannot help but conclude you might be implying that we would start looking like the US if we had a President elected by the people! Perhaps I read your posts a bit too carefully indeed!

The party in Singapore is doing a good job economically and has the assent of a large portion of the population (as judged by the polls, even from independent sources) – it is, after all, the third wealthiest country per capita in the world.
The Swiss system is superior because the Swiss people have been free to choose which system of government they want for their country – and been able to enforce a federal impact (two features, in my view, which render the monarchy – or cult of personality more generally – obsolete in the long run). I like the Presidential referendum veto in Iceland; I like the meritocratic flavour of the other systems whilst retaining a non-executive Head of State.

None of the countries you listed are Democracies (see Stephen Morris on the word play of “representative government” and democracy). The people have never been allowed to choose which system of government they want for their country. Bavaria and Switzerland, despite having no natural resources, are one of the most prosperous parts of Europe.

You raise women right to vote: in Liechtenstein women voted NO in 1968 in referendum to give themselves a right to vote. There was no demand for it. Everything was done in local town meetings. The women would instruct their husbands, fathers or brothers how to vote – which in many ways there is more control in that system than system of representative government - you cannot instruct your local MP to vote in a way you can your husband, father or brother! There was simply no demand for it. In Arizona and Oregon, which do have direct democracy, women got the vote in 1912. It was a question of demand. The women were happy being a part of a family who consulted, debated and then voted on matters in the open air.

It may be better or worse, but the people will judge that at a referendum. “The vast majority don't want to change the system. And that is what is great about or version of democracy” – I did not know who you could speak for 19 million voters and yes, I will be voting with my feet right after I finish my degree here

Yes, republics in Africa. Last time I checked Lesotho had the lowest life expectancy in the world.

"What I note with interest (again excluding Singapore) is that the countries you listed are the highest ranking non-monarchial democracies ranked by the Democracy Index and round out the top 13. What is even more interesting is that 8 of those 13 are constitutional monarchies and Queen Elizabeth rules over 3 of them (positions 5, 6 and 8). "

It is good government that causes the continuation of monarchy, not the other way around.

The remaining monarchies in the world tend to be stable and well-governed, for the simple reason that very few countries become monarchies after a major revolution. Spain and Cambodia are the exceptions, and they would not rank very highly on measures of good government.

If you choose a sample of countries which have never experienced a violent revolution, and compare to a sample of countries which have experienced revolutions, the first group will be better-governed. But that's not because of the head of state. It's because the citizens didn't need to revolt.

Think of a selection process where all countries start with a king, but where the king gets thrown out if the government becomes very bad. If the government never becomes that bad, it's likely that (a) the king's descendants are still in power and (b) a persistent history of good government has created a good set of democratic institutions.

In addition, since "republics on average" include tinpot dictatorships and ex-Communist states, of course "republics on average" appear less stable. However, countries that more-or-less peacefully lose their kingdoms, like Italy or Ireland, don't enter that kind of third-world spiral of poor government. Neither would Australia or the UK.