April 19, 2005
DEMOCRATIZATION DOESN'T MEAN DEMOCRACY:
If democracy worked, there'd be no king (Toni Momiroski, 4/20/05, Asia Times)
Speaking at the White House Rose Garden after the new Iraqi parliament's second session ended in chaos, US President George W Bush spoke about democracy at length. He argued that he and the United States were "confident that this new government will be inclusive, will respect human rights and will uphold fundamental freedoms for all Iraqis". He seemed to hope that in "a democratic Iraq, these differences will be resolved through debate and persuasion instead of force and intimidation". And he lectured on democratic ideals with these words: "In a democracy, the government must uphold the will of the majority while respecting the rights of minorities."But a note of caution is prescribed for Bush and his speechwriters and all those who would put forward democracy as the ideal mode of conduct for society without reservation. The following questions stand out for attention: If democracy pure and simple works, why does it not feature in the most important and key institutions in society? Why is there no democracy in the armed services. There is no democracy in the president's office. There is no democracy in business. There is no democracy at the United Nations. There is not even democracy in elections. In each of the above, corporate and institutional Darwinism is rampant and the "cult of leadership" reigns supreme. We don't follow democracy per se in the West, yet we continue to force it on others without question, as though the rules themselves, whatever they might be, are sacred and were dictated by God himself.
Where? It's certainly the case that they, and we for that matter, would be better off with monarchical constitutional republics--we've known that since Aristotle's time--but upon whom have we forced pure democracy? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 19, 2005 10:51 AM
The Brits have the theory of the king's two bodies, one corporeal and one of spirit. The former is now that nice old lady and will soon be her halfwit son. The latter is immortal, and never embarasses the nation by talking to his girlfriend about how he'd love to live in her knickers.
We have the latter (though we call it "the people"). Why would we want the former?
Posted by: David Cohen at April 19, 2005 11:24 AMRichard Nixon. Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: oj at April 19, 2005 11:34 AMThe Designated Hitter. New cheap looking currency.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 19, 2005 11:45 AMNo American who has ever read Thomas Paine's Common Sense could ever support a monarchy.
(Admittedly, that probably isn't a large number.)
Posted by: Brandon at April 19, 2005 12:27 PMPaine was immature.
Posted by: oj at April 19, 2005 1:00 PMWashington, my hero from boyhood, was the closest we've had to the mythic image of royal greatness. In his wisdom and vision he turned down the crown ... praise him.
On the other hand, Paine pulled Georges chestnuts from the fire with Common Sense, essentially converting the narrowly supported secession into a popular rebellion with a common cause ... praise him.
Posted by: Genecis at April 19, 2005 2:31 PMIt wasn't popular and it was a mistake.
Posted by: oj at April 19, 2005 2:41 PMWe have a monarchical constitutional republic. The president is the monarch, possesed of the powers that Whig theory was willing to alot to a monarch.
The only real innovations in the American constitution was the replacement of Lords with the Senate and the election of the monarch for a four year term.
The interesting thing is that the power of the American president has grown while in the mother country, parlementary government has replaced the mixed system of the Glorious Revolution.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 19, 2005 3:45 PMBrandon: equation of monarchy with hereditary rule is a common fallacy.
In fact monarchs may be elected. One (and an absolute Monarch at that) was elected today. The Doge of Venice was elected. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected under the terms of the Golden Bull. The king of Poland was elected during the Republic of 1573 to 1795.
Neither Roman nor Byzatine Empires had a theory of hereditary monarchy. Emperors usually had their designated successors elevated before their deaths. Needless to say, disuted successions were a major problem for those polities.
Islam likewise has no theory of hereditary monarchy. It is my contention that Al-Qaeda is a private army raised in anticipation of a struggle over the throne of the Sa'uds.
At the end of the the 17th century, English Whigs did not want to have Parlimentary rule, because they had suffered through that during the Civil War. They wanted to have a monarch, but they wanted to limit his powers so as to avoid a reprise of the disasters under Charles I and James II. Their thinking was incorporated into the American Constitution in the form of a powerful President.
As noted above, the solution was more stable in the United States than in the UK. Perhaps this was due to the democratic legitimacy of the President.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 19, 2005 9:03 PMSchwartz hits it on the head.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at April 20, 2005 2:35 AM