• Romania’s governing parties ponder referendum on constitutional monarchy
    26 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Niculae Bădălău, the executive president of the Social Democrat Party (PSD), said the Romanian people could be asked if they want to live in a republic or a monarchy. Bădălău, who said he is a republican, argued the project of such a referendum is one “the politicians, together with the president and very many other factors should sit down and discuss,” Mediafax reported.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.romania-insider.com/romanias-governing-parties-ponder-referendum-on-constitutional-monarchy/"]Romania Insider[/URL]
Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53002642]Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy[/QUOTE] So that the corrupt as fuck politicians can have a more pliable puppet than they currently have.
It brings tourism to the UK, every country should set up their own to reap the tourist bucks! :eng101:
I would actually want Romania to be a constitutional monarchy again.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53002642]Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy[/QUOTE] They didn’t choose to not have one. The Soviets and their puppets decided for them. Plus, it’s not like it’s installing a new Napoleon or something where they have total control over all things ever. Notice the preface of “Constitutional”. Any moves made to erase the misery of the communist era are good imo
Romania could also use a more central figure as well.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53002642]Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy[/QUOTE] I have never understood why some here in facepunch are so against monarchies. It's not like any present monarchy has the absolute ruler like back in the 1800's. Most of them are just iconic heads of state, with little to none political power. Hell i'd say i am more threatened by some elected leaders rather than random monarchs.
Monarchies, if done right, act as a grand national symbol of unity. In Canada, I think it's rather cool that we have a Queen, even if my French ancestors are probably spinning in their graves because of her official status as head of state, and even if she's an Ocean away. Constitutional monarchy is pretty much an ornate social decoration with deep historical roots, and it can also forge significant political or diplomatic links and ties because of this royal history. For a Constitutional Monarchy to work, however, I think the royal family (or families) in question must be a either huge part of daily social life and cultural identity (like in the UK), or silent guardians of tradition with little interference and presence in the common peoples' lives as not to seem intrusive, acting more as implied cultural elements (like in Japan). The danger of monarchy, in contrast, comes when the royals seek to personally grab more power or popular praise for themselves or when they actively rule from afar, far beyond the ranks of the people whom they govern. This is why only a few constitutional monarchies remain; popular fervour has already away wiped away monarchies that don't work. This is why the establishment of new constitutional monarchies is always fascinating, like an experiment, the insertion of a new body into a social order comparable to an organ transplant—Now will the body reject it?
[QUOTE=yeong-ho;53002874] The danger of monarchy, in contrast, comes when the royals seek to personally grab more power or popular praise for themselves or when they actively rule from afar, far beyond the ranks of the people whom they govern. [/QUOTE] This is my worry regarding Romania. The Royal House of Romania, necessarily by virtue of exile I suppose, is very distant. King Michael was well-liked, but one wonders about his heir, who seems somewhat egoistical. This is the same argument I make for the Romanovs; they're a little too self-interested.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53002642]Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy[/QUOTE] In principle I agree, but having a total status quo-oriented political figure with a kill switch on the presidency and congress right now would save us a lot of mess. If we had a queen that could just fire congress and the president like Queen Elizabeth did with Australia in the 1970s would probably make this country a hell of a lot better overnight
[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;53002967]Briefly touching on the British Royal Family here. Generally speaking it's a matter of principle. It's ultimately contradictory for a nation to talk about Democracy and Equality being key tenets in society whilst harbouring, protecting, and giving power and a life of luxury to an extended family solely because of 'birthright'. Whilst the Royal Family is a constitutional monarchy and an absolute one, they still have powers that they [I]could[/I] exercise (although it'd cause a major constitutional crisis if they actually tried it). Furthermore despite Elizabeth's general political neutrality, the Royals could definitely sway political opinions easily if they wanted to by simply talking about it, and if that wouldn't work [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos"]they could just simply secretly communicate with Government officials about political matters they want to push[/URL] behind everyone's backs. I don't agree with every Republican argument but I can understand why people generally dislike monarchies. Personally I'm not comfortable with how the Royal Family effectively touches everything in this country, and I'd rather that MPs, Judges, Police Officers, and members of the Armed Forces primarily pledge protect the country & it's citizens instead of the Royal Family.[/QUOTE] The Queen cannot use the Royal prerogative powers - she has no formal power. It isn't even a matter of her theoretically using them - there's a corpus of case law that attempts to clarify what exactly the limitations of it are, and while it isn't complete the judiciary would be very quick to stop any abuse. The only controversial prerogative power is that of dissolving Parliament - but the monarch couldn't do that without Parliament actually agreeing to do it. There's a line of thought that suggests the monarch could dissolve Parliament when it became clear the opinion of the government was no longer the opinion of the electors - and frankly I'd trust a hereditary monarch with that power over a politician. Equally, the use of informal power (e.g. the Black Spider stuff) relies on politicians being susceptible to influence - and you'd have to have those same objections to corporations, unions, lobbyists etc. There is no reason why the Royal family could influence politics any more than any other powerful individual - and perhaps even less, seeing as such influence wouldn't be based on rewards or bribes, just the prestige of the monarchy. And regarding the oaths of office - they do swear to protect the citizens and the country. Not in so many words; but the oath is appended by 'according to law'. As far as I'm aware, all the oaths of allegiance reference the law in some way, reinforcing the doctrine of a constitutional monarchy. Certainly the oath I swore as a councillor and magistrate involved that.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;53002788]I have never understood why some here in facepunch are so against monarchies. It's not like any present monarchy has the absolute ruler like back in the 1800's. Most of them are just iconic heads of state, with little to none political power. Hell i'd say i am more threatened by some elected leaders rather than random monarchs.[/QUOTE] I don't mind monarchies, I just don't think Monarch's should have any power or influence over a nation or it's decisions. [editline]24th December 2017[/editline] And it should always be elective.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;53003624]This is my worry regarding Romania. The Royal House of Romania, necessarily by virtue of exile I suppose, is very distant. King Michael was well-liked, but one wonders about his heir, who seems somewhat egoistical. This is the same argument I make for the Romanovs; they're a little too self-interested.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I agree. It's a truly valid concern; one could assume that when a royal family is removed, exiled or otherwise kicked out, it simply lives rich elsewhere and idealizes its homeland as well as its role within it, which can prove problematic when such grand royal ambitions collide with reality. A monarchy is fundamentally flawed when it views its subjects as a sort of faceless gradient monolith that adores it, hates it or both.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;53002788]I have never understood why some here in facepunch are so against monarchies. It's not like any present monarchy has the absolute ruler like back in the 1800's. Most of them are just iconic heads of state, with little to none political power. Hell i'd say i am more threatened by some elected leaders rather than random monarchs.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't want the state to sustain some random asshole's wealthy and privileged lifestyle for the sake of a vague symbolic purpose. I mean I can sort of get the sentiment between preserving an existing old institution for the sake of tradition, but in Romania? Their monarchy has been abolished for 70 years, which is longer than the kingdom even lasted in the first place. [QUOTE]Hell i'd say i am more threatened by some elected leaders rather than random monarchs.[/QUOTE] But if the monarch has no political power then you'd still have elected politicians as well? I don't really get this point.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;53003809]A parlamenarist monarchy is way better than a presidentialist system if you are living under that[/QUOTE] There's literally no inherent difference making one superior to the other, though. However, parliamentary monarchies have a tendency to be better than the most prominent current case of presidential republic we know of, because the monarchies are mainly somewhat-reasonable European countries, and the first republic to come to mind is USA.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53002642]Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy[/QUOTE] There is actually a minor debate in Peru over this. Namely, that at the time we achieved our independence, there were two opinions over which sysytem the country should use: San Martin, argentinian, believed that it was necessary to install a new monarchy, while Bolivar, venezuelan, pushed for a republic. The issue is that we've had so many caudillos, military juntas and democratic governments that have ended in failure that some people are now wondering if the republican model really is what the country needs. So yeah, give a country enough failures by the democratic system, and they'll start considering other alternatives. They dont even have to be [I]actual[/I] failures, they just need to be events that are [I]perceived[/I] and remembered as much. That will break a country's faith in democracy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53002642]Why the fuck would any nation choose to be a monarchy[/QUOTE] Canada's a constitutional monarchy. The term doesn't refer to having a tyrant in power, just a king or queen as a ceremonial head of state, like the UK. Our head of state is the Queen of England.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;53002788]I have never understood why some here in facepunch are so against monarchies. It's not like any present monarchy has the absolute ruler like back in the 1800's. Most of them are just iconic heads of state, with little to none political power. Hell i'd say i am more threatened by some elected leaders rather than random monarchs.[/QUOTE] I feel like this is overlooked quite a bit. Here in Luxembourg we have a parliamentary democracy headed by a constitutional monarch which has very limited power and acts more of a diplomatic representative or symbol for our nation. I think it's decent.
Personally I like having a monarch instead of a president - presidents are political figures, which is why you end up with heads of state hated by half the country in places like the US. Instead we have a monarch that can act as a face for the country without being involved in politics.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;53002788]I have never understood why some here in facepunch are so against monarchies. It's not like any present monarchy has the absolute ruler like back in the 1800's. Most of them are just iconic heads of state, with little to none political power. Hell i'd say i am more threatened by some elected leaders rather than random monarchs.[/QUOTE] I'm a Brit, and I don't mind so much that we have a Queen, or whatever, but it is a bit more complex here than what you say. Technically, our Queen has stupid amounts of power - it's just that if she tried to excercise that power, the monarchy would be dissolved.
[QUOTE=Dan The Man;53006570]I'm a Brit, and I don't mind so much that we have a Queen, or whatever, but it is a bit more complex here than what you say. Technically, our Queen has stupid amounts of power - it's just that [B]if she tried to excercise that power, the monarchy would be dissolved[/B].[/QUOTE] Yes and no. It depends why she exercises that power. If she does it to uphold a divisive issue that is considered highly moral, those that agree with her could become de-facto royalists and uphold her, thereby leaving the dissolution of her power in question.
The 'Constitutional' in constitutional implies that a particular monarchy is one constrained from or allowed the use of certain clearly defined powers. Wherever established, the role of a constitution varies from place to place and society to society. In a place with a strong adherence to gender equality, for example, a monarch would probably be culturally expected to have only one spouse instead of a vast harem or something. The beauty of constitutional monarchy is that its boundaries and requirements are determined by a people and government, and they're applied to the monarchy through constitution, in stark contrast to the absolutist monarchies in pre-Revolution France, pre-Magna Carta England or current-day Brunei or Saudi Arabia. Constitutional monarchy is extremely versatile and shouldn't be disregarded as acceptable tyranny or soft and worthless iconic power, because it can be both, either, or neither.
[QUOTE=Chronische;53002653]So that the corrupt as fuck politicians can have a more pliable puppet than they currently have.[/QUOTE] I'd assume that if anything most politicians have more reason to be against a restoration and I wouldn't think they could use the monarch as a puppet since the Queen would have very little power to use on their behalf and openly supporting one party would be a major red flag something was up. Instead it's possible they could do anything in their power to prevent the monarch from regaining power as [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_monarchy_referendum,_1997]supposedly happened in Albania's 1997 referendum.[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.