Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 15, 2015 12:35:45 GMT -6
Increasingly, I think the question is not so much monarchy in the abstract, but is this King still a fit and proper person. Of course, under monarchy you're not supposed to jave any say; but theoretically a Monarch who was clearly not up to the job could be removed. Theoretically, because his cronies could block any change under the current system.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Dec 15, 2015 13:31:49 GMT -6
It's important to note that the majority of those polled support the monarchy, over all.
Only 5 of 39 votes (at present) support abolishing the monarchy. Everyone else supports having a Talossan monarchy. But saying that the King shouldn't be able to veto any amendment he doesn't like isn't the same thing as saying we shouldn't have a King.
So I would say it even goes beyond whether this King is still a fit for our Kingdom. When King John ascended the throne, he took the throne as it was when Ben vacated it. What we haven't done is sat down and said "OK, this is the monarchy that Ben designed (and abused) now what do we have to do to make it so that these abuses never occur again and make the monarchy 'work' for the post-Ben Talossa."
The argument has always been "Well, John isn't Ben and he's never going to do the things Ben did." That's fine. But it doesn't address the issue that the monarchy, as it is right now, can stall amendments to the Organic Law with absolutely no recourse. The King has little power, over all, but the power he does possess can absolutely be misused without giving the people any means of redress. That's how Ben got away with the things he got away with for so long.
So, yeah, maybe John isn't Ben. But for all we know some successor to John could be twice the tyrant Ben was. And the fact that John is a "nice guy" doesn't mean that we should just give him the tools of tyranny and trust he never uses them.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 15, 2015 15:44:53 GMT -6
These are the kind of things I will be bringing up in the Royal Commission on the OrgLaw, of course. It's kind of like Venezuela - the people supported granting massive power to the Presidency when it was Hugo Chávez, but now it's Nicolas Maduro they're beginning to have second thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 15, 2015 15:57:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Dec 15, 2015 17:18:27 GMT -6
These are the kind of things I will be bringing up in the Royal Commission on the OrgLaw, of course. It's kind of like Venezuela - the people supported granting massive power to the Presidency when it was Hugo Chávez, but now it's Nicolas Maduro they're beginning to have second thoughts. Exactly. That isn't to say we haven't done things since Ben left the scene. But no one sat down and said "OK, here's the model for the King. Not THIS King. Not THAT King. But a model for ALL Kings." Now is as good a time as any to explore some practical changes to the OrgLaw that will make the monarchy viable in the long-term. The idea that the inactive son of an inactive King is ever going to participate in Talossan life, let alone pass the crown to another generation, is simply not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Prithvi Singh Ravish on Dec 16, 2015 6:21:14 GMT -6
I appeal to all the Talossans & their family members to use their vote for the betterment of their future and safeguarding of The Kingdom of Talossa...Live long The King! Are you suggesting that ANY change to the King's current powers is somehow not "safeguarding the Kingdom of Talossa?" Because if you are implying that long-time citizens of this Kingdom are trying to dismantle it by adding accountability and democracy to the mix then I think you should perhaps say it directly to the many people who believe that some form of change is warranted (and who have frankly been around a lot longer than you). Dear respected admiral, you are misunderstood. Read last slogan of my appeal i.e. 'Live Long The King' ... means, I am not in favour to abolish the Monarchy and reduce the powers of the King while everything is fine the way it is than why the change is needed. My personal view is that no more 'Political Pollution' to be produced within system that is the definition of my appeal
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Dec 16, 2015 7:13:20 GMT -6
So, as informal as these sorts of things are, it would appear that an overwhelming majority would like to retain the monarchy in some way, shape or form. This makes sense on a level, as the Monarchy is one of a few things that has been a (near, not absolute) constant in Talossa.
However, I think it is telling that a full 2/3 of those polled would like to see some sort of change in the monarchy, ranging from abolition to curtailing of power. Along with Miestra, I wonder how much of this is a reaction to our current Monarch while being comfortable with the abstract concept of a monarchy. If this were a different king, would the numbers here look different?
Some of this is beyond academic, however, as no amount of "what-iffing" can really and truly answer it. However, if we are to have a truly nonpolitical monarch, then the throne needs to be removed from the legislative process.
What, then, is the throne's role? Well, to be honest, I'm not sure. Perhaps these are my Peculiar Republican stripes showing, but aside from institutional continuity, what is it that the throne is offering Talossa?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Dec 16, 2015 8:36:53 GMT -6
So, as informal as these sorts of things are, it would appear that an overwhelming majority would like to retain the monarchy in some way, shape or form. This makes sense on a level, as the Monarchy is one of a few things that has been a (near, not absolute) constant in Talossa. However, I think it is telling that a full 2/3 of those polled would like to see some sort of change in the monarchy, ranging from abolition to curtailing of power. Along with Miestra, I wonder how much of this is a reaction to our current Monarch while being comfortable with the abstract concept of a monarchy. If this were a different king, would the numbers here look different? Some of this is beyond academic, however, as no amount of "what-iffing" can really and truly answer it. However, if we are to have a truly nonpolitical monarch, then the throne needs to be removed from the legislative process. What, then, is the throne's role? Well, to be honest, I'm not sure. Perhaps these are my Peculiar Republican stripes showing, but aside from institutional continuity, what is it that the throne is offering Talossa? I think when people hear "ceremonial" they think "empty figurehead" and I think that's part of the major obstacle. We think that in order for our monarchy to "mean" something that the King has to have an official duty or an authority that is very much "real." The granting of arms, peerages, knighthood and a slew of awards is a really good thing for our King to do. And that's a lot of stuff that makes the Kingdom of Talossa, I would argue, pretty interesting. If you come from a place like the U.S. the idea that your good service might one day get you knighted is a significant draw. But there's no real reason that the King should have the authority to veto legislation. The Cosa and the Senate are both democratically appointed. The King is not. For the King to suppress legislation from a democratic body is not a peculiar interest of the kingdom it's autocratic. I also think it would be interesting for the King to take on a number of responsibilities that needn't necessarily be handled by the government. Some of the initiatives, which have previously fallen on the shoulders of the Minister of Stuff or the Minister of Culture for example, have been carried out by the government because, for years, the government and the active citizens were one in the same group. Now, that isn't necessarily the case. Many of these functions could fall upon an officer of the Royal Household. The King should absolutely be empowered to represent the Kingdom in appropriate fora, promote activity within Talossa and promote the Talossan culture. If the King was offering patronage and guidance to an arts festival I don't think we would debate that activity nearly as much as the King trying to kill a democratically passed amendment to the Organic Law.
|
|