Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,035
Reply with quote  #1 

Recently I've posted a few articles highlighting the fact that in Australia, and in the Commonwealth generally, republicanism is in retreat - something the most recent federal election confirmed given Shorten's republic push did not go down well with voters. Republicans know they've lost, some of them even publicly admit it. And some who may have been republicans have even crossed over to our side on this.

I've offered a number of reasons in a previous post here - public indifference to debate on the issue, the view the system works well for most people, republicans themselves turning off most people, domestic and international political factors among other things.

And also the waning of the Baby Boomer generation, a similar trend noticed with Quebec separatism. Could it be part of a wider trend where many of the fashionable ideas of the latter half of the 20th Century, of which republicanism for the sake of republicanism is part, is waning? We can't say the same about separatism (see Catalonia).

The bottom line is that republicanism may not become extinct, but it is largely consigned to irrelevance for most people. It isn't just in Britain and the Commonwealth, but in most monarchies currently existing appear to me to be secure with no desire among a majority of their populace for abolition.

And here I present the bigger question. The challenge of merely preserving a country's monarchy, differing considerably from country to country, is very different to the challenge of wanting to restore a country's monarchy. Doing the former is generally easier than doing the latter. A complete turning in favour of one system or another rarely happens unless a country undergoes a monumental historical experience, or in short hand, something like a national existential crisis.

The short form question (well shorter form!) I'm going to ask is this. If republicans have utterly failed to persuade most people in existing monarchies, how then can monarchists persuade most people in former monarchies to restore them? It is very different according to regional situation - Eastern European ones being talked about here present a radically different case to prospects for restoration in Iran, Libya or Ethiopia (just to mention three countries with a "crisis experience" of greater immediacy). What are the strategies and tactics to be employed to winning people over in this?

azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV

Recently I've posted a few articles highlighting the fact that in Australia, and in the Commonwealth generally, republicanism is in retreat - something the most recent federal election confirmed given Shorten's republic push did not go down well with voters. Republicans know they've lost, some of them even publicly admit it. And some who may have been republicans have even crossed over to our side on this.

I've offered a number of reasons in a previous post here - public indifference to debate on the issue, the view the system works well for most people, republicans themselves turning off most people, domestic and international political factors among other things.

And also the waning of the Baby Boomer generation, a similar trend noticed with Quebec separatism. Could it be part of a wider trend where many of the fashionable ideas of the latter half of the 20th Century, of which republicanism for the sake of republicanism is part, is waning? We can't say the same about separatism (see Catalonia).

The bottom line is that republicanism may not become extinct, but it is largely consigned to irrelevance for most people. It isn't just in Britain and the Commonwealth, but in most monarchies currently existing appear to me to be secure with no desire among a majority of their populace for abolition.

And here I present the bigger question. The challenge of merely preserving a country's monarchy, differing considerably from country to country, is very different to the challenge of wanting to restore a country's monarchy. Doing the former is generally easier than doing the latter. A complete turning in favour of one system or another rarely happens unless a country undergoes a monumental historical experience, or in short hand, something like a national existential crisis.

The short form question (well shorter form!) I'm going to ask is this. If republicans have utterly failed to persuade most people in existing monarchies, how then can monarchists persuade most people in former monarchies to restore them? It is very different according to regional situation - Eastern European ones being talked about here present a radically different case to prospects for restoration in Iran, Libya or Ethiopia (just to mention three countries with a "crisis experience" of greater immediacy). What are the strategies and tactics to be employed to winning people over in this?


In order to make restoration of monarchies possible, monarchists must embrace democracy, freedom of religion and equality before the law for non-royals. A lot of internet monarchists reject the legacy of the French Revolution and desire the return of feudalism. That turns most people living in democratic republics off. A monarchy must be an addition to democracy, not an alternative to democracy. A king in a constitutional monarchy is a non-partisan head of state, who embodies the history and the traditions of a nation.



BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #3 

We advocate restoration of the Monarchy as part of the restoration of a truly tricameral system - Sovereign, Lords, and Commons.  The current display made of the failures of elected bodies to reflect the diversity of mind, much less the unity of purpose of the people is our primary example. 

A system based on elections and elections alone cannot represent the people with equity.  Politics takes money, and most of the people cannot afford to play the game.  Politicians are therefore chosen from the wealthy elites, or bought and paid for by them.  A hereditary body, even if initially chosen from the same social class will, by the very nature of its composition, tend towards a more diverse population.  

It is this greater diversity, enhanced protection of the minority, and the continuity with the successful governance of the past that provides our reason, our hope, and our last best chance for restoration.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

We advocate restoration of the Monarchy as part of the restoration of a truly tricameral system - Sovereign, Lords, and Commons.  The current display made of the failures of elected bodies to reflect the diversity of mind, much less the unity of purpose of the people is our primary example. 

A system based on elections and elections alone cannot represent the people with equity.  Politics takes money, and most of the people cannot afford to play the game.  Politicians are therefore chosen from the wealthy elites, or bought and paid for by them.  A hereditary body, even if initially chosen from the same social class will, by the very nature of its composition, tend towards a more diverse population.  

It is this greater diversity, enhanced protection of the minority, and the continuity with the successful governance of the past that provides our reason, our hope, and our last best chance for restoration.


Most people living in democratic republics will never accept your proposal. They don't want to lose their democracy. All European monarchies except Great Britain have fully democratically elected parliaments. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Monaco have democratically elected unicameral parliaments. I'm definitely not opposed to the aristocracy. I'm descended from German nobility. But I accept, that people wants democracy. Titles of nobility ought to be recognized by the state, but the nobility must not have guaranteed representation in parliaments. In some democratic countries, the aristocracy has a lot of informal influence and a lot of democratically elected political leaders are nobles. Kurdistan and India are examples of democracies, where the aristocracy retains a lot of political influence.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #5 

Never is a very long time......

We'd not need their active support, acquiescence is all that is needed.. 

The rebels here never had a majority until after the war was over.  Turn about is fair play. 

They're new to 'democracy', its corrosive power has not yet leched everything decent from the people. 


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

Never is a very long time......

We'd not need their active support, acquiescence is all that is needed.. 

The rebels here never had a majority until after the war was over.  Turn about is fair play. 

They're new to 'democracy', its corrosive power has not yet leched everything decent from the people. 


Most monarchists in former monarchies support an European-style democratic constitutional monarchy. I personally prefer an European-style democratic constitutional monarchy to neo-feudalism.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #7 
A proper government of Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, all is compromise.
__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
A proper government of Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, all is compromise.

A European-style democratic constitutional monarchy is my preferred form of government. I support democracy, but I prefer a non-partisan head of state, who embodies the history and traditions of the nation, to a politician as the head of state. 
In addition, your proposed form of government is based on the British parliamentary tradition, which is alien to Eastern countries. In Eastern countries like Russia, Turkey and Iran, autocracy is the traditional form of government. The Tsar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey and the Shah of Iran were absolute monarchs, and parliaments didn't exist in those countries before the 20th century.


BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #9 

You support democracy?  Who would have guessed? 

Proper government alien to the Orientals, Rus, and the like?  More's the pity.  Let get on with the lessons for them, shall we?  It is the duty of those who know the value of a system in which the people have a voice, but not the only voice, where a committee of experienced men from various walks of life are consulted on all issues of law an governance, and where a sovereign born to the throne and trained for the role all their lives protect the mutual interests of the Commonwealth, to share that knowledge with those who have been reared to think that the majority rightly rules, or that a single ruler can be trusted to care for all those in his charge.  A cord of three strands is not easily broken, but a thread made of one alone is gone as soon as the test comes. 

 


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

You support democracy?  Who would have guessed? 

Proper government alien to the Orientals, Rus, and the like?  More's the pity.  Let get on with the lessons for them, shall we?  It is the duty of those who know the value of a system in which the people have a voice, but not the only voice, where a committee of experienced men from various walks of life are consulted on all issues of law an governance, and where a sovereign born to the throne and trained for the role all their lives protect the mutual interests of the Commonwealth, to share that knowledge with those who have been reared to think that the majority rightly rules, or that a single ruler can be trusted to care for all those in his charge.  A cord of three strands is not easily broken, but a thread made of one alone is gone as soon as the test comes. 

 


Being a monarchist is about defending traditions, and each country has different traditions. You are defending British traditions. But importing British traditions to other monarchies doesn't make sense to me. The constitutional monarchies of continental Europe and Scandinavia, which lack hereditary members of their parliaments, work well. Spain, which is a restored monarchy, has a fully democratically elected Cortes (parliament). Why change a constitutional monarchy, which works well? 
I'm a supporter of democratic hereditary constitutional monarchy by conviction, but even if you aren't, supporting neo-feudalism is a bad idea, because it will strengthen republicanism. Attacking democratic monarchism is far more difficult than attacking neo-feudalism. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran enjoys massive popular support in Iran. He supports secular democracy in Iran. If he began to advocate a British-style House of Lords, his popular support in Iran would evaporate.
In the 20th century, Russia, Turkey and Iran introduced parliaments, when their monarchies still existed. But neither Turkey nor Iran introduced a British-style upper house. The members of the Ottoman senate was appointed by the Sultan, but membership in the Ottoman senate wasn't hereditary. Half of the Iranian senate was appointed by the Shah, while the other half was elected by the people. Membership of the Iranian senate wasn't hereditary. A State Council, which was the upper house of parliament, was established in Russia in 1906. Half of the members of the State Council was appointed by the Tsar, while the other half was elected. The Zemstvos elected 56 members of the State Council, the Russian nobility elected 18 members of the State Council, the Russian Orthodox Church elected 6 members of the State Council, chambers of commerce elected 12 members of the State Council, the Russian Academy of Sciences elected 6 members of the State and the Eduskunta (Parliament) of Finland elected 2 members of the State Council. The introduction of the State Council was met with massive opposition from the Russian people, because Tsar Nikolay had promised to establish a unicameral Duma in the October manifesto of 1905. Tsar Nikolay ought to have established a unicameral Duma, as he had promised the Russian people. Tsar Nikolay having established a unicameral Duma may have prevented the downfall of the Tsardom.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #11 
Sad to say, Nicholas II was not a man whose word could be trusted, his entire reign being littered with broken promises. Nevertheless, I cannot see that he ever made any promise of a unicameral Dume. Here is the English text of the October Manifesto; it refers only to the 'State Duma', with no specifics of its make-up. The State Duma had itself been announced earlier that year by Witte, the chief minister, as an indirectly elected consultative rather than legislative body. The problem with the 1906 constitution was not the State Council, which in its elected half was a decent representation of major interest groups, but the Emperor's violations of it and the very weak checks on his authority it contained.

In the event the October Manifesto did nothing to quell the disturbances, which were instead suppressed by a campaign of extreme violence with many mass executions. Over the following years Russia entered something of a boom phase while repression on a smaller scale continued, and by 1914 was looking as stable as it ever had, despite its allegedly decisive lack of a unicameral legislative body. And then the enormous calamity of WWI happened, and it was this along with Nicholas II's personal failings that brought the monarchy to an end. I think it can be confidently asserted that one less chamber in the Duma would have made no difference whatsoever.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Sad to say, Nicholas II was not a man whose word could be trusted, his entire reign being littered with broken promises. Nevertheless, I cannot see that he ever made any promise of a unicameral Dume. Here is the English text of the October Manifesto; it refers only to the 'State Duma', with no specifics of its make-up. The State Duma had itself been announced earlier that year by Witte, the chief minister, as an indirectly elected consultative rather than legislative body. The problem with the 1906 constitution was not the State Council, which in its elected half was a decent representation of major interest groups, but the Emperor's violations of it and the very weak checks on his authority it contained.

In the event the October Manifesto did nothing to quell the disturbances, which were instead suppressed by a campaign of extreme violence with many mass executions. Over the following years Russia entered something of a boom phase while repression on a smaller scale continued, and by 1914 was looking as stable as it ever had, despite its allegedly decisive lack of a unicameral legislative body. And then the enormous calamity of WWI happened, and it was this along with Nicholas II's personal failings that brought the monarchy to an end. I think it can be confidently asserted that one less chamber in the Duma would have made no difference whatsoever.

Of course, the lack of a unicameral Duma wasn't the main reason for the downfall of the Tsardom. But the introduction of the State Council was seen by the Russian people as backtracking on democratic reforms. Tsar Nikolay may not have made an explicit promise to establish an unicameral Duma, but perception matters. In addition, the Duma was elected by unequal suffrage. If Russia had been more democratic before WW1, the political system may have been considered more legitimate by the Russian people. Tsar Nikolay may still have been forced to abdicate, but then he would likely have been succeeded by Aleksey or Mikhail rather than by a weak republican provisional government, which was in turn succeeded by the Bolshevik regime.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,030
Reply with quote  #13 
I could add some to that, but can't really disagree with it.
MonarchistKaiser

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #14 
Full democracy Duma? I doubt that would work past 1914. The destabilization of Russia in the First World War would cause revolution anyway. Besides, that war has abolished some of the more democratic monarchies like Austria-Hungary, while in others like Bulgaria where the Tsar had incredible power nothing happened until the end of the next terrible war.

Coming to the topic itself, I don't believe populistic democracy altogether with restoration is inevitable in Western Europe, although I would like to see the restoration of all monarchies even at the price of the monarch being most powerless in the world.
In America, the end of democracy isn't so far regarding the coming trends or as Oswald Spengler used to say: "Through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has destroyed intellect."
the coming of monarchy through a new Caesar looks more inevitable than any European royal house member taking the throne.
Monarchy would come as the natural option, there may be still a senate/parliament, and no longer Republicanism would be the natural option of governance in the world when that happens since the greatest superpower on earth has embraced it.
Another greater possibility that looks way more realistic nowadays is the restoration of the Russian Empire under Romanovs. Yes, although Putin holds power in Russia, monarchist tendencies in the country are higher than any other European former monarchy (maybe except Serbia) that I know of. Nearly 1/3 of the population by recent polls support restoration.
As far as I believe, a Russian restoration would be more democratic than Putin quite for sure, yet the monarch would hold greater power, as said before in previous posts, Eastern Europe and the Middle East were never stunned by the progressive kind of democracy in the west. That event would increase monarchist tendency in the world quite immediately.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonarchistKaiser
Full democracy Duma? I doubt that would work past 1914. The destabilization of Russia in the First World War would cause revolution anyway. Besides, that war has abolished some of the more democratic monarchies like Austria-Hungary, while in others like Bulgaria where the Tsar had incredible power nothing happened until the end of the next terrible war.

Coming to the topic itself, I don't believe populistic democracy altogether with restoration is inevitable in Western Europe, although I would like to see the restoration of all monarchies even at the price of the monarch being most powerless in the world.
In America, the end of democracy isn't so far regarding the coming trends or as Oswald Spengler used to say: "Through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has destroyed intellect."
the coming of monarchy through a new Caesar looks more inevitable than any European royal house member taking the throne.
Monarchy would come as the natural option, there may be still a senate/parliament, and no longer Republicanism would be the natural option of governance in the world when that happens since the greatest superpower on earth has embraced it.
Another greater possibility that looks way more realistic nowadays is the restoration of the Russian Empire under Romanovs. Yes, although Putin holds power in Russia, monarchist tendencies in the country are higher than any other European former monarchy (maybe except Serbia) that I know of. Nearly 1/3 of the population by recent polls support restoration.
As far as I believe, a Russian restoration would be more democratic than Putin quite for sure, yet the monarch would hold greater power, as said before in previous posts, Eastern Europe and the Middle East were never stunned by the progressive kind of democracy in the west. That event would increase monarchist tendency in the world quite immediately.

I agree, that restoration of the German, French and Italian monarchies is extremely unlikely, and that monarchism is far stronger in Russia than in the former monarchies of Western Europe. I strongly support restoration of the Russian monarchy. But most people prefer fully democratically elected parliaments to a British-style House of Lords, including most monarchists. In the current European monarchies, most people prefer a fully democratically elected parliament. Abolition of the British House of Lords is inevitable, because most Brits want full democracy. But the British monarchy will survive the abolition of the House of Lords, because the British people supports the monarchy, while supporting full democracy. If the Russian monarchy is restored, a Russian House of Lords will likely not be established. The current Duma, which is popularly elected, and the current Federation Council (upper house) of Russia, which is elected by the legislative assemblies of the federal subjects (regions) of Russia, will likely continue to exist, if the Russian monarchy is restored.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.