• King of Belgium's Christmas message sparks controversy
    23 replies, posted
[img]http://i.imgur.com/DV8BG.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20852536[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]The Belgian king has provoked a sharp response to a Christmas message in which he drew parallels with the rise of fascism in the 1930s.[/B] Albert II warned against the dangers of populists seeking scapegoats for current economic difficulties. Flemish separatist leader Bart De Wever assumed the remarks were aimed at him and said he had overstepped his role. Belgian political experts and commentators argued that the broadcast had intervened in political debate. In his broadcast, the king said that "in these troubled times we live in, we should remain vigilant and see through populist arguments". Populists were, he said, "trying to find scapegoats for the crisis, whether foreigners or compatriots from another part of the country". Such thinking persisted in Belgium as much as in other European countries and "the crisis of the 1930s and the populist reactions of that time must not be forgotten", the king said. Belgium has a deepening divide between its Flemish (Dutch-speaking) north and French-speaking south, and there has been speculation that the country could ultimately break up. [B]'Hiding behind the throne'[/B] Mr De Wever, whose New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) party made big gains in elections in October and is now the biggest political force in Flemish-speaking Flanders, accused the king of "implicitly" referring to the N-VA in his speech. In a newspaper article in De Standaard, he accused the king of choosing "the path of a royalty of division", adding in a later broadcast interview that he could no longer see the monarch as playing the constitutional role of referee. On Belgian radio he accused Belgian PM Elio Di Rupo of "hiding behind the throne", arguing that he must have seen an advance copy of the speech and given it the green light. "[Di Rupo] won't say I'm a fascist but apparently believes it and let's the king say it," Mr De Wever said. The separatist leader also took a swipe at a predecessor of Albert's, Belgium's wartime King Leopold III (then a prisoner of war), who met Adolf Hitler "for coffee" at Berchtesgaden in Bavaria in 1940 and took Belgium "to the brink of civil war". [B]'Bridge too far'[/B] Mr De Wever's angry remarks followed a series of objections from political commentators and academics. Prof Carl Devos of Ghent University said that the passage of the speech should have been dropped, while monarchy expert Prof Mark Van den Wijngaert said a comparison with the 30s was "a bridge too far". But sociologist Benoit Scheuer told La Libre Belgique that it was fine for the king to warn of the dangers of populism, although he believed the major democratic parties should speak out as well. King Albert has taken a strong position before on Belgium's political difficulties and the monarch does traditionally play a role in attempting to resolve constitutional problems. In July 2011, Albert gave an emotional televised address, appealing to political leaders to display "modern citizenship" to bring an end to a drawn-out crisis, which left the country without an elected government for a world-record one-and-a-half years. In an apparent foretaste of his controversial Christmas message, the king warned viewers at the time that if their political impasse remained unresolved, they risked the emergence of a form of "poujadism", referring to a right-wing populist movement in 1950s France.[/quote]
He's essentially right though. The biggest problem that faces Europe politically is resurgent popularism, and also ironically democratic xenophobic nationalism. It shouldn't be compared to facistism of the last century though.
I didn't know Belgium had a King. Sounds pretty correct though. Well, maybe he should lay off the fascism bit, that's kind of a stretch. Oh oops, Dachi said all that and more. Oh well.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;38992043]I didn't know Belgium had a King. Sounds pretty correct though. Well, maybe he should lay off the fascism bit, that's kind of a stretch. Oh oops, Dachi said all that and more. Oh well.[/QUOTE] We have a king and royal family, yet all power has been stripped from them
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;38992959]We have a king and royal family, yet all power has been stripped from them[/QUOTE] Not even symbolic power? That's how it should be, I say.
[QUOTE=MendozaMan;38992959]We have a king and royal family, yet all power has been stripped from them[/QUOTE] Then why is what he says matter? [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] snip misread
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38992972]Then why is what he says matter? [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] Why should any monarch have "symbolic power"? What would the point be?[/QUOTE] It sort of matters because his christmas message is the only time the entire year that he adresses the public about current state of affairs This is also the first time he's talked about politics in like a decade, so naturally people assume that shit's pretty serious
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38992972]Why should any monarch have "symbolic power"? What would the point be?[/QUOTE] Point got muddled. I meant he [I]shouldn't[/I] have symbolic power. Monarchs are a relic of the past. A symbol of patriotism, sure, but nothing that should be kept at the head of any modern governing power.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;38993031]Point got muddled. I meant he [I]shouldn't[/I] have symbolic power. Monarchs are a relic of the past. A symbol of patriotism, sure, but nothing that should be kept at the head of any modern governing power.[/QUOTE] Ah, I misread
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993053]Ah, I misread[/QUOTE] I forgive you
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38992972]Then why is what he says matter?[/QUOTE] In constitutional monarchies, the monarch is generally meant to keep their political opinions to themselves. Otherwise it could be seen as interfering with democracy and all that
This is the sort of thing that happens when monarchs are stripped of their rightful powers. He shouldn't have to bend over backwards to some politician.
[QUOTE=smurfy;38993064]In constitutional monarchies, the monarch is generally meant to keep their political opinions to themselves. Otherwise it could be seen as interfering with democracy and all that[/QUOTE] I never understood the purpose of a constitutional monarchy. Why not just go full swing into a constitutional republic?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993078]I never understood the purpose of a constitutional monarchy. Why not just go full swing into a constitutional republic?[/QUOTE] Patriotism and the upholding of tradition. It's easier to honor past monarchs when their descendants (Or the descendants of whoever usurped their throne at some point) are still around, I would assume.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993078]I never understood the purpose of a constitutional monarchy. Why not just go full swing into a constitutional republic?[/QUOTE] so that nationalism and patriotism are directed towards a powerless figurehead rather than (potentially) a powerhungry demagogue who might get elected it's actually a rather ingenious solution to the problem of populism
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993078]I never understood the purpose of a constitutional monarchy. Why not just go full swing into a constitutional republic?[/QUOTE] Back in the day? Stopping the monarchists from going into open revolt Nowadays? "Ooh tourism..." -GB
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38993104]so that nationalism and patriotism are directed towards a powerless figurehead rather than (potentially) a powerhungry demagogue who might get elected it's actually a rather ingenious solution to the problem of populism[/QUOTE] I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993118]I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?[/QUOTE] I don't think so but don't quote me on that.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993118]I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?[/QUOTE] Even if they could, they probably wouldn't as most would decry it as the death of democracy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993118]I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?[/QUOTE] Impossible by law, state and contract. Also not even do they get to have anything to say about the military. Every single scrap of power lies in the hands of the ministers and the prime minister, the family is just there for tourism and free income through royalty Royalty brings in a lot of money for the country, surprisingly
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993118]I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?[/QUOTE] The British monarch is not allowed to enter the House of Commons, so if they got elected they couldn't actually do anything.
[QUOTE=smurfy;38993064]In constitutional monarchies, the monarch is generally meant to keep their political opinions to themselves. Otherwise it could be seen as interfering with democracy and all that[/QUOTE] Here in the Netherlands, whatever the queen/king says falls under the responsibility of the 'actual' government, the Ministers and Prime Minister. So if the queen says 'fuck jews' the Ministers have to make up an excuse and apologize on her behalf. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993078]I never understood the purpose of a constitutional monarchy. Why not just go full swing into a constitutional republic?[/QUOTE] Mostly tradition, but also to show off in the field of foreign relations. From what I've heard from ambassadors and inhabitants of other countries, they find having a King or Queen over 'cooler' than having 'just another president'. It's a 'ticket' or 'business card' if anything, to show off. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993118]I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?[/QUOTE] I assume not, seeing as that would ruin the separation between Head of State and Head of Government.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38993104]so that nationalism and patriotism are directed towards a powerless figurehead rather than (potentially) a powerhungry demagogue who might get elected it's actually a rather ingenious solution to the problem of populism[/QUOTE] That's an interesting way of looking at it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38993118]I'm curious, could any of the royal families in any of these nations actually run for elected office?[/QUOTE] The last king of Bulgaria became PM, but the monarchy was overthrown by communists years before
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.