News Stories

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Bri

Constitutional monarchies in Europe are simply parliamentary democracies with a more ornamental head of state. The monarchy itself has little or nothing to do with government. The main divide is between parliamentary and presidential systems. Even then political stability is often tied to the voting system, equal representation or first past the post.

What most people fail to realize is that the problem in any government system is the concentration of power in one person, that is why feudal monarchies were bad, because the king was the law, so abuse was ripe. The same thing is happening ATM in the USA with the cumulative power grab the executive branch has been performing with each succeeding president. TBT it has become scary, now whatever the NSA says is the indisputable truth, your rights be damned, to the dungeon with all!

[milan kyuubi]

http://www.kurir-info.rs/jovanku-bro...clanak-1045031
http://english.blic.rs/News/9972/Jov...nter-of-Serbia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24602696

Jovanka Broz Tito a widow of Josip Broz Tito a former president of SFRJ and a first lady died yesterday in 89th year of her life.

Her funeral will be on Saturday in the House of Flowers. Where her husband has been buried.

She was a great one of kind women. And she will be missed!

R.I.P

I am sure almost none of the younger people don't know who Tito and Jovanka were. But the older members should remember them.

[Dhomochevsky]

Ridwan's logic is completely backwards.

When a country goes through major instabilty, unrest, or revolution, the first thing they get rid of, is the king.
The historically more stable countries still have kings, because they were more stable and therefore never revolutionized them away in a violent manner.
Not the other way around.

Whatever caused them to be stable over the last few centuries may still be around today, so there may be a correlation between monarchy and stability (which I really don't see, but whatever), but this is just that.

[Ridwan]

Eh, that's exactly what I said, that their monarchies are still around because they were more stable throughout time. Rather then getting rid of the monarchy, it's better to evolve at the right pace. Evolution over revolution. When you get late to change though, the oil in the cauldron will get boiling and you get closer to explosive result.

Other then an indication of perpetual stability, symbolic monarchy also functions as a revered figurehead, above whatever conflicts are on going within the parliament, above the government. So in addition to being an indication of stability, symbolic monarchy is also a factor of relevance in upholding the said stability, even if it often seems that they just sit there and do nothing.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Eh, that's exactly what I said, that their monarchies are still around because they were more stable throughout time. Rather then getting rid of the monarchy, it's better to evolve at the right pace. Evolution over revolution. When you get late to change though, the oil in the cauldron will get boiling and you get closer to explosive result.

Other then an indication of perpetual stability, symbolic monarchy also functions as a revered figurehead, above the stains of temporal process of parliamentary politics, above the government. So in addition to being an indication of stability, symbolic monarchy is also a factor of relevance in upholding the said stability, even if it often seems that they just sit there and do nothing.

Case in Japan would certainly point to this. But the case for Spain would be opposite, would it not? The regionalism in Spain creates hostility towards the monarch, or am I wrong on this?

[Ridwan]

From what I see it, it's more like that the regionalist movements in Spain are hostile towards the right. It's complicated with Spain though, which had suffered more civil wars then any other European country for the last 200 hundred years and spent a quarter of that span time not as a monarchy. It's also been a bit too resistant to change for most of its history for various reasons.

[Der Langrisser]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Absolute Monarchy I grant you, it's bad. Then again, usually it's in place in countries that don't have much in way of democratic tradition nor requirements for one. France certainly had it bad since it didn't go constitutional when the time called for it. It wasn't because its last king was a tyrant though. Rather, he was a wuss who didn't use the wave of social turmoil to bury the cancer that was French landed gentry, so he got swept instead.

I have to ask, but which king, Louis XVI, Charles X or Louis-Philipe, because we overthrowned three king between and one emperor between 1789-1870.

Because you know, their only wrongdoing was that they weren't as progressive as the people wanted (Charles X was a full retard on that regard).
And after 1789, the monarchy WAS a contitutional monarchy, and stayed that way until Louis-Philippe was overthrowned in 1848 !

And did you know that France was also called a "presidential monarchy" ? Since the establishment of the 5th Republic by De Gaulle, the president is directly elected by the people instead of the National Assembly, giving him powers akin to that of a king, instead of being something to a figurehead.

[Ridwan]

Yeah, the revolution failed. I guess it's hard with the Bourbons. It's either an atavist or an inept with them.

[Der Langrisser]

The Revolution didn't fail, since France is a democracy, but it took almost a century before it finally come to fruition with the 3rd Republic.

[Ridwan]

Yeah, the revolution failed. In the end, France took evolution, which process was often disturbed anyway by the deep polarization rooted in the first revolution. Third Republic was just Napoleon III doing horrible foreign policies. He wasn't so bad domestically.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Since reimplementing their monarchy Spain has been growing not only economically but in all other aspects and the actual king helped avert a crisis that IMO was very similar to the actual crisis in Egypt (everybody feared another civil war when Franco died). The actual economical crisis is just a bump in the road and it is not limited to Spain (the whole Eurozone is in economical trouble, but Spain will probably be the first to restructure their economy and return to healthy growth in a few years down the road).

I understand that french people have been indoctrinated from a young age against the idea of a monarchy as an actual form of government, but IMO it is but constitutional monarchies are but another form of government.

Sure, but to say that "Countries that retain their monarchy more often have better track record in economic and political development then those which had overthrown theirs. " is wildly overstating the benefit of propping up some family as a tabloid target. Or what, the USA owes its present economic growth to the Khardashians?

For one thing, as Bri said, the difference between constitutional monarchies and other parliamentary democracies are mostly cosmetic. For another, we have monarchies that do well, monarchies that do badly, non-monarchies that do well, non-monarchies that do badly.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Sure, but to say that "Countries that retain their monarchy more often have better track record in economic and political development then those which had overthrown theirs. " is wildly overstating the benefit of propping up some family as a tabloid target. Or what, the USA owes its present economic growth to the Khardashians?

For one thing, as Bri said, the difference between constitutional monarchies and other parliamentary democracies are mostly cosmetic. For another, we have monarchies that do well, monarchies that do badly, non-monarchies that do well, non-monarchies that do badly.

I believe it is very important to have a separation of:
1) Head of State
2) Head of Government

How do you quantify the stress, discord and conflict that arises from the: "If you criticize the President, you're being anti-American!" net of arguments on "Why waste money on having a Monarch / Head of State!?"

[Anh_Minh]

None of us French people has any problem criticizing both our Head of State or our Head of Government, jointly or separately, over problems of style or substance. I'm pretty sure being too supportive would be considered, if not anti-, at least un-French.

[Der Langrisser]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

None of us French people has any problem criticizing both our Head of State or our Head of Government, jointly or separately, over problems of style or substance. I'm pretty sure being too supportive would be considered, if not anti-, at least un-French.

The day we'll be fully supportive of our government, the pigs will fly...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Der Langrisser

The day we'll be fully supportive of our government, the pigs will fly...

I thought the French never liked their government since Charles de Gaulle took power. The election is always like a process of the least evil.

[Zakoo]

And you understood well. No matter what they do, it's never enough to please us.
To think that the day when I finally agree with Anh Minh came, soon the end of the world, or at least of France.

I think the sentence that can represent us perfectly is : "French can either be perfect or aweful, never mediocre".
Since they are never perfect, they are de facto aweful, middle isn't allowed.

[Anh_Minh]

I'm pretty sure the tradition of hating the government's older than De Gaulle.

[Der Langrisser]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

And you understood well. No matter what they do, it's never enough to please us.

To think that the day when I finally agree with Anh Minh came, soon the end of the world, or at least of France.

Nah, the end of the world will only come when a french tennisman will win the Rolland Garos tennis open.

[SeijiSensei]

America generally followed the split executive/PM style of government for much of our history as there was unified control across the Presidency and both branches of Congress. For much of our history we had a division between the Executive, represented by the President, and the Speaker of House as the party's parliamentary leader. (The Senate was always a bit weird as it was appointed rather than directly elected until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1911.) The brief period during 2009-2010 when the ACA was passed is a good example.

Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington makes a strong case for the historical value of monarchies as they underwent modernization in his Political Order in Changing Societies. His discussion of the US as a "Tudor polity" frozen in time compared to evolving Europe also offers some good insights into these issues.

[mangamuscle]

When I think the human rights situation can't worsen in the USA, I am unpleasantly surprised; Call Yourself A Hacker, Lose Your 4th Amendment Rights.