NationStates

Genivaria wrote:It would be lovely if God actually removed said monarch then instead of leaving the nation to have to have a bloody revolution/civil war first.

Ardoki wrote:What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

Ardoki wrote:What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

Salus Maior wrote:

Genivaria wrote:It would be lovely if God actually removed said monarch then instead of leaving the nation to have to have a bloody revolution/civil war first.

Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Ardoki wrote:What is a semi-constitutional monarchy? What are the various forms it could entail?

I'm not a monarchist, I'm just intrigued by that poll option.

Semi-Constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch retains executive power.

Ardoki wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Semi-Constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch retains executive power.

Isn't a constitutional monarchy any monarchy where the monarchy is limited by a constitution?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Ardoki wrote:Isn't a constitutional monarchy any monarchy where the monarchy is limited by a constitution?

Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

Ardoki wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Technically, but there are subsets of it, because that's such a broad category that it would be meaningless if left as it were. We wouldn't say that the Japanese monarchy and the Jordanian monarchy are similar institutions just because both have a constitution.

The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Ardoki wrote:The British and German monarchies were two main forms of it, right?

I know how the British monarchy operated. But how did the imperial German monarchy work? Was the government basically appointed by the emperor, with just a legislature democratically elected to approve things?

Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Ardoki wrote:Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

Not exactly, Constitutions still inherently limit power and constitutions can be expanded, so a monarch who holds vast power is inherently threatened by the concept of a constitution itself.

I am very much against Absolutism myself, but against the UK style of Constituionalism, nor the German Empire levels, which is far too autocratic in my eyes.
I favor a strong balance between the two.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of ruling without popular mandate. Forcing the creation of a Monarchy on a populace that does not want it is tyranny. And blood-monarchies, while inherently appealing to me, are ultimately a failure and lead to corruption, tyranny, and incompetence, something I despise. I prefer adoptive monarchies, myself. The idea is to to adopt the most qualified heir who most closely follows your values, to provide a force of stability, and to ensure the ideology doesn't deviate. However, that successor, is treated as family, not just politically, but genuinely.

Why have the ideology not deviate?
Simple:

My version is meant to be a check against radical extremism on both sides, as well as partisanship, allowing society to progress in any direction, whilst ensuring stability, a competent active government when democracy is gridlocked, a rallying cry for when society is divided over the elected government, virtue, morality, and to protect liberty.

It's the check to the failures of democracy and monarchy, and is designed to allow stability, combat corruption, incompetence, gridlock/division, and tyranny, while also not being too powerful in itself.

I'm still in the early conception stages of it's design, but those are the guidelines, and I'll likely be making multiple versions. My current, favored version is based on the USA Government Structure, with both an Elected President and Monarch.


I should stress that anyone who takes my ideas and forces them upon a country betray the very values it's based on, and if somehow, my ideology becomes popular, but people somehow abuse unforeseen consequences to become tyrants or to try to force it through tyranny and dictatorship, etc., and not Democratic means, then it was partially my failure for not accounting for it, but also I denounce them and would excommunicate them as well as demand they step down.

Granted, I'm not implying my ideas will be successful, but if they are, I want to lay down some groundwork now. I shall also be putting a similar warning in the official text, if I ever get that far.

Stonok wrote:

NeuPolska wrote:Wow edgy

I wanted to say something about that but I wasn't sure what I could say in response to it. To me America is not an oligarchy because the popular vote of each state does go towards the election of the President, but at the same time it's not a direct election for the office, but rather elects a body of people (The Electoral College) to vote for the desired candidate.

The Founding Fathers despised "Democracy", believing it to be tyranny by majority, but to say that America is ruled wholly by a select few (Oligarchy) is not quite correct, at least no more correct than it is in any other country.

Second Empire of America wrote:

Stonok wrote:I wanted to say something about that but I wasn't sure what I could say in response to it. To me America is not an oligarchy because the popular vote of each state does go towards the election of the President, but at the same time it's not a direct election for the office, but rather elects a body of people (The Electoral College) to vote for the desired candidate.

The Founding Fathers despised "Democracy", believing it to be tyranny by majority, but to say that America is ruled wholly by a select few (Oligarchy) is not quite correct, at least no more correct than it is in any other country.

The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

Kowani wrote:

Second Empire of America wrote:
The President lost the most recent election by 2.8 million votes and got to run the country anyway. The Senate is run mostly by rural states and gives next to no representation to large states like California and Texas. The House of Representatives, the most democratic branch of the US government, is blatantly rigged by rampant redistricting fraud. The current opposition party could win the House elections by as much as +6% and still be cheated out of a majority. The Supreme Court is blatantly Oligarchial; Supreme Court justices rule for life with zero accountability. Whatever America is, it is undeniably not a democracy.

Yes, yes, the America is not a democracy argument, blah blah fucking blah. What’s next, are you going to say that the American left is not truly leftist as well?

Salus Maior wrote:

Erdogan in cool sunglasses wrote:When someone is able to rule as a king that means God supports him (because without this support he would lost his power). So definitely a monarch has a God given right to rule but it isn't a thing which makes a monarch for me.

To establish a dynasty monarch should be someone exceptional in the whole society, a true leader who knows what his people want and how to get it. Being a monarch is more alike serving the nation than tyranny (honestly this should apply to democratic politics too). When someone can't serve the people he never should be a monarch.

But his descendants have easier task to do. It's enough that they are born in the ruling family because of their ancestors braveness. But of course that applies only to the ideal world. When the descendants can't rule in the good way they should be dethroned.

Then what's the point?

Part of the idea behind monarchism is that 'the people' can make the wrong decisions for the nation and the monarch can override it. That being said, of course corruption has to be avoided in any government.

Nekokuni wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Anyone religious would say that the failure of the monarchy to prevent revolution would mean that divine protection/providence for the monarchy has been lifted.

Which is true outside of Christian circles as well, if you've ever learned about the Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Nekokuni wrote:
The Mandate of Heaven was merely a Confucian excuse for regicide and the replacement of the ruling dynasty.

Erm....
It actually precedes Confucius.

So I very much disagree with that, and the guy who replied with it being built on the idea of ruling virtuously is correct.
I myself am interested a similar mandate, but less divine, more populist, yet removed from elections, but also bound to democracy-so they can't abuse their power, nor be removed for having beliefs that one side disagrees with, etc.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Ardoki wrote:Your system is very interesting. I'm not a monarchist, I think I would prefer the more meritocratic element of an adopted heir over a blood heir.

Ah but you see, the very idea of a adoptive heir is to enforce meritocracy.

The following is a theoretical idea that may help the system but I see some big issues with it, so quite willing to scrap it:
To achieve this system, the monarch would need to treat everyone like family, and be recognized as everyone's father or brother. People should be taught to treat like family but to not simply be subservient. To respect their decisions, but think independently. That way, the monarch is respected, and people have an attachment to the monarch(Thus making these adoptions easier) but are willing to question them.


As I said, there are some obvious issues with the above idea, so that's not a system I really like, alternate ways of ensuring that the heir gets along with the adoptive father as well as continues to hold onto the ideals of the nation-as they must both be talented and hold onto those ideals-while allowing society to progress in any direction, would be welcome.

Ardoki wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Prior to Wilhelm II, the German monarchy had some executive power, but Wilhelm's power expanded greatly over the course of his reign, becoming semi-autocratic.

The British monarchy's power fluctuated throughout its history as well.

Both still technically constitutional though?

What is the point of absolute monarchies, when a monarch can achieve almost the same level of power while technically being constitutional? I'm guessing believing in a divine right to rule plays a part?

Frievolk wrote:Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?

Second Empire of America wrote:

Frievolk wrote:Just something I'd appreciate if others could answer:
The British Monarchy might be the earliest modern example of a Constitutional Monarchy. It's possibly one of the main forms of constitutionalism for other aspiring monarchies that wished or wish to democratize. However, it doesn't have a Constitution.
Sure, it has legal constitutional texts (i.e. the Magna Carta, etc.), but it doesn't have a written, penned down Constitution that sets the contract between the Crown, the State, and the People. Should it, therefore, actually be called a "Constitutional Monarchy"? And if no, then what should it be called?

I'd personally call it a "Ceremonial Monarchy". I like constitutional monarchies, but I dislike the name, because apart from your example, there are absolute monarchies that do have constitutions.