Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?

[David V]

Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.

The protests in Jordan are not actually aimed at the monarchy but calling instead for reforms of government.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.


As for the Commonwealth Realms... Had I been Queen of England I would have sent my children to serve as Governor-Generals to commonwealth realms to possibly succeed as heads-of-state there. Maybe the Princess-Royal serving as Governor-General of Canada then as queen there, the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia then king there, and the Earl of Wessex as governor-general of New Zealand and then king there too. *shrug* as it is, It seems likely that after good queen Bess passes these realms may take a different path.

By the time QEII's children were of an age to take on those positions the relevant countries were no longer accepting foreigners as GG.

The time to do that was past by the time QEII became Queen really but had Victoria done it then these countries may very well be content monarchies with a history of their own monarchy.

The Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia in the 1940s and wasn't all that popular in that position - partly because of his attitude I believe. My mother worked for the British High Commission during the final year of his time as GG and told me that he wasn't popular with either the Australians or the British in Canberra at the time.

I wonder what would happen if say the Queen, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew abdicated their rights to be the monarch of Australia and thus Beatrice, at 22 became a young Queen of Australia - would she be accepted - probably not but could it satisfy some of the republicans to have 'our own' monarch whose children would be born and raised here etc.? A thought only.

 

[Keystone]

Egyptian president Mubarak resigns and grants extra-constitutional power to the army.


Yeman and Jordan next? Pundats yesterday were saying Mubarak would likely stay on until the elections. All bets are off, me thinks if the King of Jordon does not act asap his regime may be next indeed.

Sad truth is I generally like the King of Jordan, as he is a western leaning ruler. But if he has not been ruling in a western fashion with an eye for a democratic legislative assembly, basic human rights, and an execultive answerable to the legislative assembly then perhaps he should also step down?

 

[Keystone]

With the transfer of power in Egypt under the auspices of the army, might there be a role for Mohamad Ali, Prince of the Sa'id and the deposed Egyptian royal family? Might they become the focus of a united Egypt in much the same way as the King of Spain has become for that country?

 

[Keystone]

Bahrain's government next? These middle eastern monarchies really need to embrace the liberal democratic ideas of the West if they wish to survive like Western monarchies have. The need to embrace peaceful transfer of power, multiparty systems, the rule of law, and the monarchies of these realms should transition much like the Spanish monarchy has.

Good luck to them I say.

 

[jemagre]

Bahrain's government next? These middle eastern monarchies really need to embrace the liberal democratic ideas of the West if they wish to survive like Western monarchies have. The need to embrace peaceful transfer of power, multiparty systems, the rule of law, and the monarchies of these realms should transition much like the Spanish monarchy has.

Good luck to them I say.

How do we know that western monarchies won't be next? They are more liberal than there middle-eastern counterparts but they still operate on the same premise. For all we know there could be mass protests against them tomorrow. These countries are fighting for democracy. Monarchies may be constitutional in the west but they still are not democracies.

 

[David V]

You cannot compare the Middle East and Europe because of how different societies and cultures are. And for what it's worth, reforms are more likely to be easily carried out in some of the monarchies, and Morocco is in fact quite democratic compared to most of the Arab world. Most Arab countries, despite many of them providing a decent standard of living, do not provide the sort of political rights and free expression, which is what this is all about now. And the most abusive regimes in the Arab world are not even monarchies (except, perhaps, Saudi Arabia). That's why the protests in Tunisia and Egypt go to where they are, because their presidents not only abused power but also found ways to do both that and enrich their close circles.

Most people know what works and won't want to change what works, after all look what happened between two World Wars. And European monarchies provide the sort of unifying force and safety valve to democracies that many other countries do not have, for the worse. Nobody's political rights and civil liberties in Europe are being suppressed like they have in much of the Middle East and Asia.

 

[Princess Martine]

This is an interesting discussion!

I voted for Sweden.

I really don't hope they (or any other European monarchy) become a republic though!

 

[sjetajiem]

I will not vote, but I am convinced that monarchy will not exist anymore in say about 50 years.
I live in what is said to be a stable monarchy, the Netherlands but a lot of young people (the future) could not care less about the royal family.
The most traditional celebration of the dutch monarchy Koninginnedag is celebrated by most of the people because it is a day off and you can sell your old stuff on the free-market.
The second day, Prinsjesdag (Opening of the Parliament) is only celebrated by a handfull of royal diehards.
The majority of the people is mostly interested in the new plans of the government and the cuts of the budget, and I can even understand that!!




There is a lot of complain today about the costs of the monarchy
A lot of young people don't feel connected to the RF

 

[jemagre]

You cannot compare the Middle East and Europe because of how different societies and cultures are. And for what it's worth, reforms are more likely to be easily carried out in some of the monarchies, and Morocco is in fact quite democratic compared to most of the Arab world. Most Arab countries, despite many of them providing a decent standard of living, do not provide the sort of political rights and free expression, which is what this is all about now. And the most abusive regimes in the Arab world are not even monarchies (except, perhaps, Saudi Arabia). That's why the protests in Tunisia and Egypt go to where they are, because their presidents not only abused power but also found ways to do both that and enrich their close circles.

Most people know what works and won't want to change what works, after all look what happened between two World Wars. And European monarchies provide the sort of unifying force and safety valve to democracies that many other countries do not have, for the worse. Nobody's political rights and civil liberties in Europe are being suppressed like they have in much of the Middle East and Asia.

I am not exactly comparing the societies. I am comparing the basic idea that the institution rest on. The idea that someone is more able to "lead" a country because they were born into the right family. That idea is the same whether you are talking about Europe or the Middle East. The argument against monarchies is the same the world over. That is what I was referring to. We have no real way of knowing when people will say that they have had enough of monarchies. Revolutions are not always easy to predict.

You also argue that monarchies are seen as a unifying force. How unifying is it for Catholics who can't marry into the family? How unifying is it for minorities? I submit the example of the "secret" trip that William and Kate just took. If the monarchy was a source of unification there would not be so much strife in Northern Ireland today.

By the way no government will provide absolute unity but I do not think that monarchies are necessarily the greatest example of unified government.

 

[David V]

Europe's existing monarchies happen to be societies which are among the most democratic, progressive and egalitarian around. Compare that to the history of the US over time, where any efforts towards equality and social justice often met and still meet with fierce opposition, or Latin American countries where only in recent times democracy and any effort to improve people's lives have been the norm, and those countries have a terrible history of abusing their own citizens' rights.

A monarchy is not determined by the vested interests of partisan politics, which is its greatest strength. Better someone who is above all party and other interests, than someone who can easily be bought with such.

 

[jemagre]

Europe's existing monarchies happen to be societies which are among the most democratic, progressive and egalitarian around. Compare that to the history of the US over time, where any efforts towards equality and social justice often met and still meet with fierce opposition, or Latin American countries where only in recent times democracy and any effort to improve people's lives have been the norm, and those countries have a terrible history of abusing their own citizens' rights.

A monarchy is not determined by the vested interests of partisan politics, which is its greatest strength. Better someone who is above all party and other interests, than someone who can easily be bought with such.

I almost feel like you are describing a paradise when you talk about monarchies. I would not say that England's society or anyone elses for that matter has escaped such criticisms in regards to social changes. Every country in the world has struggled with social and political changes. England has fought many wars over internal struggles just like almost every nation on this planet. Nothing is perfect. We are all still changing and adapting to the world around us and our countries change with us.

As for the United State's history, not every act of social change is met with violence. For example: Dr. King actually preached a non-violent message for racial equality. Women won the right to vote not through violence but through peaceful protests. There is also nothing wrong with the act of demonstration as the U.S. was founded on freedom of speech. I will also say, that while it is not politically correct to write/say this, violence does sometimes get you good results. Hitler lost his power through the "violence" of WWII.

As this discussion is about monarchies though I would say that royals are not above politics. Prince Charles is known for his political views. Most royals may not publicly share their opinions but they still have them. In Belgium, for example, royals vote in that country on a political level. This act is confined to junior members but they still do it. How unpolitical is that? What the idea of a monarchy is and what it actually executes are two different things. In a modern age when people are more educated about politics is it necessary to have a monarchy? Could that position not filled by a President who would care out the ceremonial duties for the country while the Prime Minister rules the country?

 

[PrincessKaimi]

If a nation wanted a purely ceremonial president, as opposed to an executive president, then surely there could be such a thing.

However, it seems to take enculturation from childhood into the proper ceremonial role. If a King or Queen is going to stand for the more ineffable, qualitative aspects of Good Behavior and Good Sense, for a nation (and exhibit those qualities at national ceremonial events), they do need to be properly "cast" for the role.

Some people who are not born royal would do a better job that some people who inherited their titles; on the other hand, many of the royals of the modern age understand that they need to fulfill this important ceremonial role, or they simply won't be perceived as good persons (and most people want to be good).

With the proper fulfillment of the ceremonial role comes real power. People do listen to people who are steady, dependable and exhibit good sense in public settings. If in addition, the royal person is educated and knowledgeable about the world, they can do a great deal in offering advice to the real politicians.

Real politicians live in an entirely different world than a monarch does, and the two points of view can be very helpful to each other.

 

[David V]

I almost feel like you are describing a paradise when you talk about monarchies.

Definitely not, but it cannot be argued they have done best in terms of being law-governed

As for the United State's history, not every act of social change is met with violence. For example: Dr. King actually preached a non-violent message for racial equality. Women won the right to vote not through violence but through peaceful protests. There is also nothing wrong with the act of demonstration as the U.S. was founded on freedom of speech. I will also say, that while it is not politically correct to write/say this, violence does sometimes get you good results. Hitler lost his power through the "violence" of WWII.

Violent or non-violent, those who sought to bring change- whether it was to abolish slavery, bring about racial equality and voting rights, or even attempt to bring greater social justice and social security to ordinary people (which European countries have done so successfully)- have always met with fierce resistance. And as you would know, the political rhetoric now has become ever more heated and bitter. And in Latin American countries, people have tried to resist such attempts with violence. Where do you think the worst inequities of social class and gender et al are?

A monarch is expected to look into the long term and not serve party interests. And more likely, is expected to be trained for the role from the start.

 

[jemagre]

Definitely not, but it cannot be argued they have done best in terms of being law-governed



Violent or non-violent, those who sought to bring change- whether it was to abolish slavery, bring about racial equality and voting rights, or even attempt to bring greater social justice and social security to ordinary people (which European countries have done so successfully)- have always met with fierce resistance. And as you would know, the political rhetoric now has become ever more heated and bitter. And in Latin American countries, people have tried to resist such attempts with violence. Where do you think the worst inequities of social class and gender et al are?

A monarch is expected to look into the long term and not serve party interests. And more likely, is expected to be trained for the role from the start.

People meet with fierce resistance all over the world when going through social changes. The type of government doesn't matter. People are not going to stop and say because I have a King/Queen I will not fight or be bitter about the changes going on around me.

As for political rhetoric,that has gone on since government was founded regardless if the person heading the country overall was a monarch. As for were the greatest imbalance in social classes are, well I am sure you would attack democracies. Funny how in England given Kate's families money they are still considered middles class. However, no government is exempt from inequalities in social standing. We don't live in a utopia and I am grateful for that.

Monarchies don't exactly represent everybody. They are not known for being racially or religiously integrated. They also don't tend to marry that far out of their social standing. To me they are not representing the everyman despite what they may claim. One does not get to be King/Queen through hard work but by being born. The bloodline is paramount. So therefore everyone who does not have it is not fit to lead a country? While I admit that not everyone can be President at least everyone has the chance.

 

[monapublican]

Whatever country who abolishes their monarchy next is the nation that has found a disconnect with them. They will find that they and the monarchy is at odds and they will deem fit that they don't want them anymore.

This is sad by the way because it entails the growing archaic, anachronistic and unuseful trappings of monarchies today. We don't see people in republics calling for the abolition of republics, for good reason too.

I think in a situation like this, that there's a monarchy in which it's institution and conventional wisdom is radically changed, and not just minor.

 

[NGalitzine]

Bahrain for failing to understand the Arab spring and adapt accordingly.
Swaziland because the king keeps spending money on his family that should be spent on his people.
Belgium because politicians seem intend on breaking the country up. The RF seem to be the only Belgians in Belgium.

 

[fearghas]

I've decided to change my thoughts. Possible actions in Liechtenstein may mean the overthrow of that dynasty.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

NOOOOO! Not my dear Liechtenstein! Though I can see problems might arise soon.

 

[NGalitzine]

What issues are you seeing in Liechtenstein? The referendum was a couple of yrs ago and the princes side seems to have won. Havent seen any reports of protests in the streets of Vaduz. I know the Catholic Church isnt too happy about recent decisions regarding same sex unions but that is a legislative issue not really a princely one. I suppose if Hans Adam really gets fed up he can just sell the place to Bill Gates, lol.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

This is just something I have heard last week and I DO NOT have all the information or facts so no one take my post as 100% the truth.
Apparently the people of Liechtenstein voted to legalize abortion and Prince Alois stated that if the law passes he will veto it; essentially ignoring the will of the people.

 

[NGalitzine]

Hmmm. Alois and Hans Adam seem to be following in the path of Henri of Luxembourg. In Henri's case the parliament removed his power to approve legislation, which may not be an option in Liechtenstein.

 

[fearghas]

The referendum to legalise abortion was narrowly defeated and so the Prince won't have to use his powers to vetoe the peoples choice. But if it had gone the other way then he would have vetoed against pro abortion. Now not getting into the minefield of the morality of abortion, is it wise in a a European country for a heriditary prince to go against the wishes of his people? What is the point of having a referendum if the result is going to be ignored? If that sort of thing happens too often then I can see the elected government, and the peole, getting fed up with and deciding to abloish the monarchy, which they still have the right to do. In this case the HP avoided a showdown but if he keeps acting unilaterally?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

If it happened too often, I could see a country rising up and saying enough is enough, but usually it doesn't seem to come to that. But I admit I don't know much about he monarchies that actually have power and how the majority of the citizens in those countries feel about them.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well in Liechtenstein they actually voted a few years ago to increases the ruling princes powers, so they should not object too strongly if he occassionally exercises those powers.

 

[fearghas]

Well in Liechtenstein they actually voted a few years ago to increases the ruling princes powers, so they should not object too strongly if he occassionally exercises those powers.

Quite true

 

[Emperor Roku XIV]

with the situation in nepal.

Which country do you think could be next to abolish their monarchy?

of all the reigning monarchies in the world, not just europe.

My opinion... I dont want to see another monarchy abolished!!!!!!

I agree with that opinion, I hope never to see any more monarchies abolished, I want to see them return!

I have even heard talk of Canada becoming a republic after the Queen's reign is over. I sure hope this never comes to pass.

 

[Emperor Roku XIV]

Yes, all 16 would have to get rid of them to make them a non-reigning House.

The UK won't do it, though Australia likely will. Canada won't, either.

I hope Canada never does it. Even if it does happen, the head of the house of Windsor will always be my King / Queen!

 

[Emperor Roku XIV]

Why Spain? Juan Carlos I is immensely popular!

 

[TLLK]

Why Spain? Juan Carlos I is immensely popular!

From what I have read Juan Carlos is respected for his role in transitioning the nation from a fascist dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy. Also his handling of the attempted coup and reaching out to all members of the political spectrum was admired in the early 1980s.
While I admire the Prince and Princess of the Asturias for their work ethic and busy schedule of events, I'm not sure if the admiration and good feeling toward JC will automatically transfer to his heir Felipe.