The monarchy debate

[johan neeskens]

I live in a constitutional monarchy where over 80% of people are in favour of the monarchy and where the royal family has consistently grown in popularity since world war II. Intellectually I am completely against any class of monarchy as it obviously is as undemocratic and primitive as you can get, but emotionally I'm all for it (this might be because we have a kick arse queen at the moment but there you have it) as only when celebrating events involving either the royal family or football, the Dutch feel united and not afraid to express nationalism. I also feel that especially in these fast moving times, it can't be bad to have one constant factor in a society. Finally, I find that a number of republics, notably Germany with their Bundespresident, have an alternative to the monarch in that there's a leader who stands above all political parties. Could it be that people actually and generally love the idea of a monarchy? Or that they need it, even?

Anyway I'd like your opinion: monarchy yes or no? And why or why not?

[Colm]

I'm personally not against a monarchy aslong as they don't have any political power i.e like in my country.

[nicephoras]

I've long been in favor of the US granting me absolute royal hereditary powers.

Present monarchies are cultural vestiges which are tolerated so long as their cost is not excessive. The interest that people have in them is the same as the interest people have in zoos. All that's different is the gilding on the cages.

[Colm]

Most monarchies these days tend to be tourist attractions and nothing more.

[johan neeskens]

Most monarchies these days tend to be tourist attractions and nothing more.

That's the weird thing, the Dutch royals do have political power still, the queen appoints the person who forms the coalition government notably, but the Dutch people don't seem mind. Even the most leftist party in the NL recently abandoned their 'Holland has to be a republic' point of view because it's no use, the Dutch love their monarchy.

[Colm]

That's the weird thing, the Dutch royals do have political power still, the queen appoints the person who forms the coalition government notably, but the Dutch people don't seem mind. Even the most leftist party in the NL recently abandoned their 'Holland has to be a republic' point of view because it's no use, the Dutch love their monarchy.They shouldn't have political power really, it's not democratic. Is that the only power the Dutch Monarchy has is to appoint the person who leads the coalistion government?

[johan neeskens]

I've long been in favor of the US granting me absolute royal hereditary powers.

Present monarchies are cultural vestiges which are tolerated so long as their cost is not excessive. The interest that people have in them is the same as the interest people have in zoos. All that's different is the gilding on the cages.

I can't speak for all monarchies but ours has genuine meaning to the people of the Netherlands. Our queen's a symbol of unity and in that sense has a status equal only to football.

This may be difficult to understand for people who didn't grow up in a monarchy.

[johan neeskens]

They shouldn't have political power really, it's not democratic. Is that the only power the Dutch Monarchy has is to appoint the person who leads the coalistion government?

She also passes new laws. I think this is similar to the situation in Belgium. Their King is anti-abortion and when Belgian government wanted to legalise abortion he actually stepped down from the throne for a day so as not to interfere with proceedings. So in actual practise it's ceremonial. Problems would arise of course if we ever got a power-hungry idiot for a king or queen.

[johan neeskens]

I completely agree that it's undemocratic by the way. Monarchy is an absurd institution. My argument is however that people love the concept.

[Colm]

Problems would arise of course if we ever got a power-hungry idiot for a king or queen.I was just wandering if the Dutch or Belgian government could overthrow a monarchy if someone like that came accross?

[johan neeskens]

I was just wandering if the Dutch or Belgian government could overthrow a monarchy if someone like that came accross?

Probably but it would require a change in the constitution which would take years to get through parliament. You can't legally throw your king or queen out from one day to the next.

[Anthony]

I completely agree that it's undemocratic by the way. Monarchy is an absurd institution. My argument is however that people love the concept.

I am a republican also of the small "r" variety. But I think monarchy can serve a purpose by acting as a focual point of the state in a non-political way. In the US or France, that role is covered by the constitution or the idea of the republic.

It can also serve a purpose in more immature democracies to act as a bullwork against dictatorship. In Spain, the monarchy was instrumental in transitioning the country to democracy after the death of Franco.

[bigredfutbol]

I am a republican also of the small "r" variety. But I think monarchy can serve a purpose by acting as a focual point of the state in a non-political way. In the US or France, that role is covered by the constitution or the idea of the republic.

It can also serve a purpose in more immature democracies to act as a bullwork against dictatorship. In Spain, the monarchy was instrumental in transitioning the country to democracy after the death of Franco.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Belgian monarchy is one of the few institutions bridging the gap between Flemish and Wallon.

[Smiley321]

One of the things they should ask prospective US citizens: "Do you hate royalty?"

A "no" answer should result in immediate deportation. The US was founded on hating royalty.

[GringoTex]

It can also serve a purpose in more immature democracies to act as a bullwork against dictatorship. In Spain, the monarchy was instrumental in transitioning the country to democracy after the death of Franco.

Excellent point.

[johan neeskens]

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Belgian monarchy is one of the few institutions bridging the gap between Flemish and Wallon.

That's the way it should ideally work were it not for the Belgian royals barely speaking any Dutch. Which obviously the Flemish aren't too pleased with.

[Rowdies4ever]

One of the things they should ask prospective US citizens: "Do you hate royalty?"

A "no" answer should result in immediate deportation. The US was founded on hating royalty.
No, the USA was founded on the idea that only Americans should rule Americans. If Great Britain had been a republic in the 18th century there probably still would have been an American Revolution because it's extremely difficult for a distant power to rule over another people wisely and effectively, once that people is used to self-rule. Americans hate the idea of others ruling over us. If others chose to have kings or whatever that is their business not our business and no American is required to hate royalty just because you say so.

Frankly I'd rather deport Social Democrats than Royalists. That's just my personal opinion; it isn't a Constitutional opinion.

[Caesar]

Monarchy suits me fine. I prefer power to rest with an Executive that is part of the legislature as well, and deeply dislike the amount of power and influence the US President wields in relation to Congress.

At the moment our Governor General is basically appointed by the PM, and is generally a distinguished citizen (ex-High Court Judge, war hero, respected academic, etc) whose primary role is as a figurehead. If we were to convert to a republic, it would basically be trading our appointed GG for a President who would be popularly elected. Since the GG has little influence on the practicalities of the day-to-day running of the country, I'm happy for Parliament to select him. If we gave it to the people it would become a circus. In practical terms we'd have very little to gain except another time-consuming, elaborate and expensive election process.

Monarchies are convenient. Having a ceremonial head of state seperate from the head of government removes a lot of the unneccessary pomp and circumstance surrounding the office that actually does all the work. Our GG can go to funerals and hold official receptions for ambassadors, traditional balls, do charity work, and make speeches while the PM can actually get on with running the country.

Like Anthony said, it also provides a vital element of stability in times of turmoil, due to the much greater permenance of someone who doesn't have to be elected every few years.

[Rowdies4ever]

I completely agree that it's undemocratic by the way. Monarchy is an absurd institution.Democracy is also an absurd institution. Absurdity has never stopped anyone from obeying whatever form of polity they happened to be born into.

[johan neeskens]

Monarchy suits me fine. I prefer power to rest with an Executive that is part of the legislature as well, and deeply dislike the amount of power and influence the US President wields in relation to Congress.

At the moment our Governor General is basically appointed by the PM, and is generally a distinguished citizen (ex-High Court Judge, war hero, respected academic, etc) whose primary role is as a figurehead. If we were to convert to a republic, it would basically be trading our appointed GG for a President who would be popularly elected. Since the GG has little influence on the practicalities of the day-to-day running of the country, I'm happy for Parliament to select him. If we gave it to the people it would become a circus. In practical terms we'd have very little to gain except another time-consuming, elaborate and expensive election process.

Monarchies are convenient. Having a ceremonial head of state seperate from the head of government removes a lot of the unneccessary pomp and circumstance surrounding the office that actually does all the work. Our GG can go to funerals and hold official receptions for ambassadors, traditional balls, do charity work, and make speeches while the PM can actually get on with running the country.

Like Anthony said, it also provides a vital element of stability in times of turmoil, due to the much greater permenance of someone who doesn't have to be elected every few years.

What needs to be recognised is that not all monarchies are ceremonial, not even in democratic countries. The Swedish royals are stripped from all power, whereas the Thai king basically runs the country even when said country is a democracy. As for the Dutch situation, I am amazed at myself or indeed the fairly well educated people of the Netherlands in general that we are in favour of an institution that intellectually most of us disapprove of. To the Dutch it is mostly an emotional thing. The ancestors of our royals threw out the Spaniards, after all, and it's thanks to them that we're even a country. Now that we're a multi-cultural society, our royals' quality of uniting the country is more important than ever. Our crown princess is an immigrant herself, after all.