A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles"
Exactly (part of) why I'm in support of the monarchy in the UK. If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, not the government (I'm from an army family and know this is taken seriously).
We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.
>If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch,
I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs that the army in a 'democracy' swears allegiance to a hereditary monarch, and that its good, if as you say, people in the army take that seriously.
What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In some sense that meant 'push was coming to shove'?
The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family, who some time in the past probably did some game-of-thrones nasty things to come out on top. No one seriously believes they have a divine right to rule any more, so why should their interests be privileged over the interests of the population at large?
Whatever about an elected head of state with symbolic power, the people can at least remove, really, the hereditary monarch argument just seems like an argument from the 18th century.
I'm from the Republic of Ireland, which is culturally very similar to the UK, but wow, what a difference in perspective on this issue!
> The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family
Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill...
It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties.
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".
Sure, yeah, I see that the monarch doesn't exercise much power; from the outside, the monarchy doesn't look like a practical problem.
Until I read [commenter from military family on HN] talking about sworn allegiances when "push comes to shove". That's when I go 'woah'.
>The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics
And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign.
I'd rather take the cohort of random citizens who work their way up through a [very imperfect] selection process which selects a leader/representative.
> And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign.
Well, the monarch has a lot of duties-of-state. An endless procession of people to meet and ceremony to conduct. It's not like the UK monarch gets to laze it up in the sun on yacht in the azure coast week in, week out. And the nearby royal family do have to engage in some 'good works', or they will lose their social position to people asking 'wtf!?'. All the name-brand royals are heavily involved in charities and causes in this modern era, because if they start ignoring 'social duty', they'll lose their privilege. The days of the monarch just doing as he or she pleases are long gone, in the UK at least.
While "it's good to be the king", it's also not a lazy life. You also have to play the part and behave somewhat beyond reproach - the military aren't going to take their vows to the monarch so seriously if she started dressing and behaving like Johnnie Rotten.
The idea is that the monarch cannot really exercise that power arbitrarily. If they try, their legitimacy will be questioned.
But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.
> What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people?
In that case, the military's natural tendency to side with the people and the nominal legitimacy of the democratic leader would likely trump some words spoken due to medieval traditions.
Ambiguity like that could get very messy, but that's exactly what makes it so unattractive for would-be despots to count on the military for internal power struggles.
What does that have to do with monarchy? The same happens in some republics. E.g. in Portugal there is a prime minister (government) and a president who acts as supreme commander of the armed forces.
Probably because the monarchy isn't elected and so might maintain some ability to persevere through times when the population might make poor decisions. Also immune to bad elections.
Heads of state (eg presidents) are frequently not elected, but instead appointed by heads of government (eg prime ministers). Heads of state are symbolic and do lots of ceremony (some have a bit of power), and heads of government are where the power sits. Heads of state can usually have the power to dissolve government in a crisis, but they can't appoint government (in western democracies).
The US is a little unusual amongst Western democracies in that the head of state is the same person as the head of government.
It's the same here in Norway, the king is actually a six star general and commander in chief of the army.
In addition (s)he can veto laws that then have to be passed by 2/3 majority to succeed.
Not that the royals have used this power ever but it is a good check on the parlament.
>We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.
The monarch can suspend parliament. The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years). The monarch can appoint a new one. Every law has to be signed by the monarch (it's not been refused in 300 years). The monarch is commander in chief.
Power resides where people believe it resides. The monarch can only do any of that if people believe in the monarch.
The monarch can do all those things, but in reality if she tried to dismiss a PM or refuse to sign a bill, it would be a matter of days or weeks before the monarchy ceased to be an institution.
The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years).
Actually, in Australia the Queen's representative (the Governor General) did dismiss the Prime Minister[1]. Interestingly, the Governor General position is closer to a ceremonial president in many other places in that they are appointed by the PM. If the PM at the time had acted to sack the Governor General that would have been just as legal as the other way around.
(Actually there are some good arguments that sacking the GG would have been "more" legal, in that the GG is supposed to act on the PM's advice. Fortunately the PM didn't push the issue, because that is the road to real trouble)
This is similar to the US system, except that our Speaker of the House has less power than the Prime Minister, and our President has (a lot) more power than the monarch.
Those changes take away the benefit he outlines for his system. In the US system the President is the most dangerous actor (notwithstanding the Federalist Papers prediction that it would be Congress).
That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of the military as a last resort. At most I think it would be best if they stood aside for a revolution rather than actually instigating a coup.
In the US, the last resort is theoretically the Unorganized Militia. However, as the name implies, they are unorganized and to rely on them is leaning on a broken staff.
but it is not even necessary for the unorganized militia to topple whatever entity takes power. The unorganized militia just needs to be omnipresent and unorganized. Not really a staff, but rather millions of pegs supporting the table of society.
I probably should have said "analogous" instead of "similar". In practice, the different balance of power leads to a very different system. But I don't see how the president isn't a "separate head of state".
Exactly (part of) why I'm in support of the monarchy in the UK. If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, not the government (I'm from an army family and know this is taken seriously).
We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.