Posted on 05/29/2018 7:15:04 PM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
Recently, author and speechwriter Don Watson has questioned the impetus for Australia to become a republic. In the April edition of The Monthly, he wrote:
In a world filling with tyrants, Queen Elizabeth and her descendants represent a sort of anti-tyranny.
He goes on to note:
Our democracy works imperfectly well, and it is hard to see how any of its practical imperfections would be remedied by going republican.
In effect, the governor-general, who is appointed by the elected government, acts as a de facto ceremonial head of state, while we maintain the pretence that Elizabeth is the sovereign.
Like Watson, I have come to rather like the absurdity of our constitutional arrangements. By separating the ceremonial and the actual power of government, there is a check on the egomania of politicians, who are not sheltered from the real world to the same extent as are royalty.
At a time of increasing pessimism about the state of politics, it is worth asking whether we in fact need the absurdities of constitutional monarchy to preserve liberal democracy. Even to pose the question is to risk being assailed as reactionary and on the side of privilege.
But we need to distinguish between the pomposities of the extended British royal family, or deference to the Thai monarch, and the real purpose they serve as checks on untrammelled authoritarianism.
In Britain and the old dominions, the royals are more popular than ever. Republican Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull fights for photo ops with Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle. When I asked a Canadian friend of mine about support for a republic in that country, he said the idea would be laughed off as irrelevant.
The 15 Commonwealth countries including small Caribbean and Pacific island states — seem uninterested in changing the status quo.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconversation.com ...
Well, if you want to live in a Monarchy catch a plane and good luck.
We’re not interested.
How dumb does someone have to be to think a monarchy and a democracy are compatible??
Elizabeth has been an exceptional sovereign. When Charles accends the throne this may come up again.
Not only No but F NO!!
Just in time for Cindy McCain and Chelsea Hubble...
Interesting - but there is a reason no new monarchies are being made.
None will buy them.
England’s monarchy has, in my opinion, abdicated.
The way I see it is they have the responsibility to define the culture.
The Queen could have stopped/slowed the unbelievable sell out to the
Muslims, the EU (brexit ain’t gonna happen), gay rights, social media censorship, Church of England, and whatever else.
Where is she on any of the life and culture changing things going on in
England?
Playing with her Corgies most likely.
Intelligent comments are not possible. Notice they think the discussion has to do with u.s. Article never mentions U.S.
Perhaps, but she is an appointee, subject to impeachment, retirement or death and no assurance that another socialist/globalist will be appointed by an elected official and given advice and consent of the senate.....
Checks and balances, unlike a monarchy, where the inbred offspring of power grubbing “royals” gets a crown for an accident of birth.....
Regarding the USSC, as you can see, the pendulum swings. fabric of the court changes over time gradually ( “conservatively” if you will), unlike any other format of governance.
anyway, subjects never understand free citizens, we happen to beholden to none, except those we elect and see appointed to safeguard the unalienable rights we retain.
Read the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson et al plagiarized from some solid British men of their time, wisely. We the people retain the right to revolution if absolutism arises its tyrannical head again.
Deomcracy, or rather representative republicanism, faired well until the vacuum created by Obama enabled the rise of totalitarian ISIS to create another round of chaos.
I was there and saw freed men and women happy about self determination.
I believe that is the author’s point. When the inevitable chaos and tyranny show up, there is no one on the field to defend the Rule of law and the constitution.
IMPOverished third worlders are overwhelmed
Mexico’s democracy might have survived if their monarchy were still there to provide the proper checks and balances
Impoverished 3rd world rulers are thieves and usurpers whose population cowers under foot due to the lack of liberty and means to effect it. The largess given to such places becomes currency ad power held closely and manipulated to continue the abuses. Somalia 1990s.
Believe me, that is the goal of all the worlds governmental systems, it is just the checks and balances and moral fiber of the legitimate voting/speaking enfranchised population. Disarm America ( if you could) and you would see tin pot dictator policies rampantly harming those who trusted it to be beneficent, let alone the dissenters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.