Shall Gulf Monarchies be abolished?

[Adamede]

Yes because never has a royal dynasty or ruler been overthrown and replaced with another one.

I’m not trying to argue here that monarchies are inherently worse, but I am arguing against the idea that they’re inherently better. They suffer from many of the same problems that all other forms of governments do, and that is that they’re run by humans.

A government system is a product of the culture and society over which it presides to a significant extent. It makes about as much sense to slip an absolute monarchy into place in the United States as it does to force a liberal democracy on Saudi Arabia or the UAE. You can theoretically impose regime changes from the outside, but you have to employ an optimal degree of coercion and reshape existing institutions in much the same was as Truman and MacArthur did in Japan.

I agree. Nor does any nation have the right to impose any cultural changes on another imho. Change should ultimately be up to the people of a society.

[Adamede]

It worked well enough the last time before they got uppity about tea.

I wording call George 3 an absolute monarch, and much of the tension that caused the American Revolution was caused by Parliament.

[Ostroeuropa]

We can't invade Saudi Arabia.

We could potentially back a proxy invasion by other muslim nations however.

The only one that is both willing and able is Iran.

It would need to be a coalition.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Nekostan seems to be on a roll with these abolition threads

I'm waiting for the USA abolition thread next

In all seriousness, even if we wanted to abolish the Arab monarchies, we couldn't do that without some sort of war. And I don't know about you, but I think that the American public might be tired of endless wars across the world.

[Sundiata]

And I don't know about you, but I think that the American public might be tired of endless wars across the world.

Our character's changed. For better or worse, we're a lot more soft than we used to be.

[Adamede]

And I don't know about you, but I think that the American public might be tired of endless wars across the world.

Our character's changed. For better or worse, we're a lot more soft than we used to be.

There’s nothing soft about being tired of sending thousands of Americans to go die in wars that the public doesn’t understand the cause of or the places they’re being fought.

[Sundiata]

Our character's changed. For better or worse, we're a lot more soft than we used to be.

There’s nothing soft about being tired of sending thousands of Americans to go die in wars that the public doesn’t understand the cause of or the places they’re being fought.

The education of the public matters, we do want to be a nation of integrity.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

And I don't know about you, but I think that the American public might be tired of endless wars across the world.

Our character's changed. For better or worse, we're a lot more soft than we used to be.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to make more veterans thank you very much.

[Borg Cat]

Saudi Arabia is a highly authoritarian political entity that treats its own female subjects including even princesses like shit. Even nominally nicer ones such as Dubai are actually as nasty as Riyadh as what the misfortune of Princess Latifa has revealed.

If human rights actually exist then they must also apply to subjects of Gulf monarchies. Their abolition is a necessity just like the universal abolition of slavery. Even the current regime of Iran is nowhere as horrible as these entities in terms of women’s rights.

What do you guys think, NSG?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11 ... escape/amp

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/google-sau ... ng-app.php

Islamic nations are different of Christian nations in political and religious dogma. Muslim countries do not necessarily need democracy based on what they may believe. Christianity stands for equality. Islam stands for obedience. Read carefully their Holy Books and hopefully you can see the differences. Christianity starts with Jesus Christ. Islam starts with their Prophet. Look at their words for comparison. Universality vs. Selection.

[Adamede]

There’s nothing soft about being tired of sending thousands of Americans to go die in wars that the public doesn’t understand the cause of or the places they’re being fought.

The education of the public matters, we do want to be a nation of integrity.

Yah, and a good step on that path is stop needless wars.

[Nakena]

Most monarchies weren't absolute originally. Not even hereditary. They were feudal polities where the King was often merely the first among equals, and often elected or confirmed by tribal council of free man. It was more like Rohan from Lord of the Rings than France under the Sun King.

The whole "divine right of Kings" stuff and not to mention absolutism would come many centuries later, when the feudalism was replaced by statism.

Not entirely true.

What you're describing is broadly the process in post-Roman Western Europe. However, Roman and Byzantine emperors were certainly considered divinely appointed absolute rulers, with the process reaching its apogee following the Crisis of the Third Century, and lingering on in the Byzantine Empire until the very end. Court ceremonial in the Roman Empire from at least Diocletian onwards was designed to emphasise the divine inviolability of the state's absolute ruler, while the rulers of its Byzantine successor were overtly considered God's vice-gerent on earth. Similarly, many earlier and contemporary states emphasised the divinely appointed nature of the ruler; if we go back further to Ancient Egypt, then national ideology was wholly invested in the concept of the absolute god-like ruler.

It would be fair to note that theory and practice often diverged, but nonetheless the concept of the divine right of kings wasn't so much a new concept in post-medieval absolutism, but was rather a reassertion of a dormant strand in European monarchy with a long tradition throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East reaching all the way to Egypt and Sumeria.

Yep I described the feudal idea of kingship, which I believe most modern monarchies in europe are however vaguely derivated from.

As for the roman monarchy, of course I have to agree with you but it's noteworthy that the roman thing developed out from a republican office (the Principate?) that assumed, over time, increasingly monarchistic characteristics but was originally (afaik) never intended to be similar to kingship. I'd fair to say that in any case that both ideas at some point started to merge.

Which is another interesting occurance in history as many fomally republican systems tend to adopt hereditary monarchical features at certain stages of their development unless this is explicitly prevented, as many italian rensaissance republics were very aware of. (current examples Syria, North Korea, and various central asian nations) Even in the US theres a tendency towards political dynasties, such as the Kennedy's or the Bush's.

As for the god-emperors etc, to my knowledge the only currently existing monarchy is following this concept anymore would be the japanese one. Not sure if the abolished one in Nepal does count.

Regardless of this all, my original point was that Trollzyn's stated perception of monarchy is greatly reductionist and simplified and ignores the various types of monarchy and it's history.

[SD_Film Artists]

(current examples Syria, North Korea, and various central asian nations) Even in the US theres a tendency towards political dynasties, such as the Kennedy's or the Bush's.

Indeed, Britain and America tend to have mirroring contradictions; Britain is officially a theocratic monarchy but is unofficially secular while America is officially secular but is an unofficial theocracy.
Britain is officially a hereditary monarchy, yet it's America which has the real nepotism.

Perhaps that's one of the benefits of being a monarchy; it acts as containment for the theocratic nepotism.

[The Archregimancy]

Not entirely true.

What you're describing is broadly the process in post-Roman Western Europe. However, Roman and Byzantine emperors were certainly considered divinely appointed absolute rulers, with the process reaching its apogee following the Crisis of the Third Century, and lingering on in the Byzantine Empire until the very end. Court ceremonial in the Roman Empire from at least Diocletian onwards was designed to emphasise the divine inviolability of the state's absolute ruler, while the rulers of its Byzantine successor were overtly considered God's vice-gerent on earth. Similarly, many earlier and contemporary states emphasised the divinely appointed nature of the ruler; if we go back further to Ancient Egypt, then national ideology was wholly invested in the concept of the absolute god-like ruler.

It would be fair to note that theory and practice often diverged, but nonetheless the concept of the divine right of kings wasn't so much a new concept in post-medieval absolutism, but was rather a reassertion of a dormant strand in European monarchy with a long tradition throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East reaching all the way to Egypt and Sumeria.

Yep I described the feudal idea of kingship, which I believe most modern monarchies in europe are however vaguely derivated from.

As for the roman monarchy, of course I have to agree with you but it's noteworthy that the roman thing developed out from a republican office (the Principate?) that assumed, over time, increasingly monarchistic characteristics but was originally (afaik) never intended to be similar to kingship. I'd fair to say that in any case that both ideas at some point started to merge.

Which is another interesting occurance in history as many fomally republican systems tend to adopt hereditary monarchical features at certain stages of their development unless this is explicitly prevented, as many italian rensaissance republics were very aware of. (current examples Syria, North Korea, and various central asian nations) Even in the US theres a tendency towards political dynasties, such as the Kennedy's or the Bush's.

As for the god-emperors etc, to my knowledge the only currently existing monarchy is following this concept anymore would be the japanese one. Not sure if the abolished one in Nepal does count.

The only significant correction I would make (to what I acknowledge is only a quick summarising post that's hardly designed to outline these points in detail) is the mischaracterisation of the development of the Roman imperial office. It's not really correct to state that the Principate as originally set up by Augustus was 'never intended' to be similar to kingship. On the contrary, it would be better to state that Augustus and his immediate successors absolutely intended their office to be a monarchy, but intentionally masked their power under residual - but increasingly powerless - republican institutions in order to bypass what were at the time deep-seated Roman philosophical objections to the institution of kingship. It's also important to stress that one of the key reasons the office became an overt divine kingship after the Crisis of the Third Century was the influence of the similarly structured Sassanid monarchy (where, however, Zoroastrianism was the religion underlying state power).

[Insaanistan]

Saudi Arabia is a highly authoritarian political entity that treats its own female subjects including even princesses like shit. Even nominally nicer ones such as Dubai are actually as nasty as Riyadh as what the misfortune of Princess Latifa has revealed.

If human rights actually exist then they must also apply to subjects of Gulf monarchies. Their abolition is a necessity just like the universal abolition of slavery. Even the current regime of Iran is nowhere as horrible as these entities in terms of women’s rights.

What do you guys think, NSG?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11 ... escape/amp

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/google-sau ... ng-app.php

Islamic nations are different of Christian nations in political and religious dogma. Muslim countries do not necessarily need democracy based on what they may believe. Christianity stands for equality. Islam stands for obedience. Read carefully their Holy Books and hopefully you can see the differences. Christianity starts with Jesus Christ. Islam starts with their Prophet. Look at their words for comparison. Universality vs. Selection.

Uh... Islam’s holy book starts with “In the name of God, most Gracious most Merciful. Praise be to God, lord of the Universe.” and says “Women are the twin halves of men”.
Muhammad (pbuh) says “If your faith is increasing, your respect for women should too” and “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a non-Arab over an Arab. Nor is there any superiority of a white over a black. Nor is there any superiority of a black over a white.”
It also mentions Jesus (pbuh) way more than it mentions Muhammad (pbuh).
Additionally, the first leaders of the Muslim community after Muhammad (pbuh) were elected by shura, also known as Islamic democracy. Said leaders could be impeached, but the practice of electing rulers generally died out as the Islamic world fractured and different groups claimed dominance and authority.

[The Archregimancy]

Saudi Arabia is a highly authoritarian political entity that treats its own female subjects including even princesses like shit. Even nominally nicer ones such as Dubai are actually as nasty as Riyadh as what the misfortune of Princess Latifa has revealed.

If human rights actually exist then they must also apply to subjects of Gulf monarchies. Their abolition is a necessity just like the universal abolition of slavery. Even the current regime of Iran is nowhere as horrible as these entities in terms of women’s rights.

What do you guys think, NSG?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11 ... escape/amp

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/google-sau ... ng-app.php

Islamic nations are different of Christian nations in political and religious dogma. Muslim countries do not necessarily need democracy based on what they may believe. Christianity stands for equality. Islam stands for obedience. Read carefully their Holy Books and hopefully you can see the differences. Christianity starts with Jesus Christ. Islam starts with their Prophet. Look at their words for comparison. Universality vs. Selection.

And no doubt you can quickly summarise how Christianity's innate relationship to democracy and inherent support of concepts of equality helped to foster extensive democratic political ideals across the first 1600 years or so of Christianity.

I mean, the first thing I think of when I think of 'democracy' is the Byzantine Empire, Imperial Russia, or the Habsburg world state of Charles V; all of them, so very, very, democratic and utterly committed to social equality.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Not entirely true.

What you're describing is broadly the process in post-Roman Western Europe. However, Roman and Byzantine emperors were certainly considered divinely appointed absolute rulers, with the process reaching its apogee following the Crisis of the Third Century, and lingering on in the Byzantine Empire until the very end. Court ceremonial in the Roman Empire from at least Diocletian onwards was designed to emphasise the divine inviolability of the state's absolute ruler, while the rulers of its Byzantine successor were overtly considered God's vice-gerent on earth. Similarly, many earlier and contemporary states emphasised the divinely appointed nature of the ruler; if we go back further to Ancient Egypt, then national ideology was wholly invested in the concept of the absolute god-like ruler.

It would be fair to note that theory and practice often diverged, but nonetheless the concept of the divine right of kings wasn't so much a new concept in post-medieval absolutism, but was rather a reassertion of a dormant strand in European monarchy with a long tradition throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East reaching all the way to Egypt and Sumeria.

Yep I described the feudal idea of kingship, which I believe most modern monarchies in europe are however vaguely derivated from.

As for the roman monarchy, of course I have to agree with you but it's noteworthy that the roman thing developed out from a republican office (the Principate?) that assumed, over time, increasingly monarchistic characteristics but was originally (afaik) never intended to be similar to kingship. I'd fair to say that in any case that both ideas at some point started to merge.

Which is another interesting occurance in history as many fomally republican systems tend to adopt hereditary monarchical features at certain stages of their development unless this is explicitly prevented, as many italian rensaissance republics were very aware of. (current examples Syria, North Korea, and various central asian nations) Even in the US theres a tendency towards political dynasties, such as the Kennedy's or the Bush's.

As for the god-emperors etc, to my knowledge the only currently existing monarchy is following this concept anymore would be the japanese one. Not sure if the abolished one in Nepal does count.

Regardless of this all, my original point was that Trollzyn's stated perception of monarchy is greatly reductionist and simplified and ignores the various types of monarchy and it's history.

The Thai monarchy is the best example of a god emperor, there are protests to bring democracy, but many people in Thailand are convinced that reducing the monarchy’s power will cause the end of the world or something along those lines, which is why there were so many militant royalist counterprotests

[Ethel mermania]

Islamic nations are different of Christian nations in political and religious dogma. Muslim countries do not necessarily need democracy based on what they may believe. Christianity stands for equality. Islam stands for obedience. Read carefully their Holy Books and hopefully you can see the differences. Christianity starts with Jesus Christ. Islam starts with their Prophet. Look at their words for comparison. Universality vs. Selection.

And no doubt you can quickly summarise how Christianity's innate relationship to democracy and inherent support of concepts of equality helped to foster extensive democratic political ideals across the first 1600 years or so of Christianity.

I mean, the first thing I think of when I think of 'democracy' is the Byzantine Empire, Imperial Russia, or the Habsburg world state of Charles V; all of them, so very, very, democratic and utterly committed to social equality.

However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

[The Marlborough]

And no doubt you can quickly summarise how Christianity's innate relationship to democracy and inherent support of concepts of equality helped to foster extensive democratic political ideals across the first 1600 years or so of Christianity.

I mean, the first thing I think of when I think of 'democracy' is the Byzantine Empire, Imperial Russia, or the Habsburg world state of Charles V; all of them, so very, very, democratic and utterly committed to social equality.

However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

Tbf the history of Western liberal democracy is incredibly short and in many instances it was more or less imposed upon defeated enemies after the world wars (noticeably Germany) or came as a consequence of the end of the Cold War and the need to integrate into institutions such as NATO and/or the European Union (and its predecessor). As we've seen, some of those states have started to drift away from liberal democracy, most noticeably Hungary. The US itself didn't become a liberal democracy until the mid 1960's with the end of segregation and the renewed protection of black American voting rights. Chances are at this point the US will also drift away from it at some point, though what form it will take is up in the air.

I think in regards to Western political philosophical tradition is that there is a heavy emphasis on creating a strong Rechtsstaat (this applies even during periods such as the Middle Ages) which can be argued to make certain societies more likely to develop more democratic systems and politics if other conditions are met as well. However, I would say that this emphasis on the Rechtsstaat could just as easily foster a society to develop less democratic systems and politics as well.

[Sanghyeok]

And no doubt you can quickly summarise how Christianity's innate relationship to democracy and inherent support of concepts of equality helped to foster extensive democratic political ideals across the first 1600 years or so of Christianity.

I mean, the first thing I think of when I think of 'democracy' is the Byzantine Empire, Imperial Russia, or the Habsburg world state of Charles V; all of them, so very, very, democratic and utterly committed to social equality.

However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

Not being colonised certainly helps.

[Ethel mermania]

However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

Not being colonised certainly helps.

As I recall America was a British colony.

[Insaanistan]

Not being colonised certainly helps.

As I recall America was a British colony.

Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

[Atheris]

However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

Not being colonised certainly helps.

I do believe America and Canada were both British colonies? I may be wrong, though.

[Atheris]

As I recall America was a British colony.

Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

Leave the goalposts where they are.

[Insaanistan]

Let’s rephrase:
Not being colonized until the mid-late 20th century.

Leave the goalposts where they are.

Rightio.

[Kexholm Karelia]

And no doubt you can quickly summarise how Christianity's innate relationship to democracy and inherent support of concepts of equality helped to foster extensive democratic political ideals across the first 1600 years or so of Christianity.

I mean, the first thing I think of when I think of 'democracy' is the Byzantine Empire, Imperial Russia, or the Habsburg world state of Charles V; all of them, so very, very, democratic and utterly committed to social equality.

However the western tradition eventually evolved into western liberal democracy. No other 'culture' seems to have done so.

I honestly would be interested in your take on this.

Are you aware of the political history of the Maratha confederacy?