Remember that in parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government (the prime minister) are not the same person. In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the head of state is an elected president, usually an fairly elderly politician. The emperor of Japan would have to be replaced as head of state by someone holding some new office, who would do pretty much the same things the emperor does now, at a similar cost to the taxpayer. It wouldn't be the prime minister.
There is a similar aspect to the debate around House of Lords reform in the UK. A lot of people in the House of Commons don't want an elected House of Lords, because if it were elected, the Lords would have democratic legitimacy just as the Commons does, and could therefore make a reasonable case that it should have a lot more political power than it has now.
So, beware of unintended consequences.
In Italy the only people elected by the citizens are the members of the Parliament.
The head of the state is elected by the members of the parliament every 7 years.
The head of the government is chosen ("invested") by the head of the state after a round of consultations with representatives of the political parties after the parliamentary election (basically the president asks "guys, who would you like as your own leader?"). The appointment of the head of the government is then approved (or, often, refused) by a parliamentary vote.
It was customary (before Berlusconi's times) for the winning party to elect its own representative as the head of the higher chamber. At the same time the losing party would get to elect the head of the lower chamber. (Yes, "lame duck" by design.)
All this complicated dance of indirect elections (that the current parties would like to remove) has been put in place after the WW2 to avoid too much power being in the hands of these high-profile figures or of a single party. "You have not been elected. We, the parliament are those who reign here." The head of the state cannot even address the parliament or get physically near the discussion hall without a written request from the MPs.
All of this was put in place after World War II to centralize power in the hands of the Christian Democrats, and force non-communist parties to go into coalition with them. As all prime ministers for a half century after WWII were either Christian Democrats or from those parties in coalition with them, it worked fairly well. Of course even this had bumps in the road so you have the 1948 elections which the communist/socialist coalition won but which was fixed the other way, a strategy of tension by P2 and the far right being blamed on the far left as the left makes electoral and other advances in the 1970s, plus you have Gladio and secret NATO armies in the wings in case the communists are actually elected into power. Of course being Italian, you know all of this.
And yet this system allowed liberal reforms, like divorce and abortion, to be carried our during a center-right party rule, and Italy to become (at the time) the 7th most advanced economy.
Even the clause in the constitution that declared Chatolicism as the country's official religion was amended during CD rule.
It is (was) an imperfect system and it created a lot of instability, since even a party with a low share of votes could throw down the coalition government at any moment, but at least it forced parties to go beyond ideologies and work out compromises. The lack of alternance in power also fostered corruption, which was the downfall of CD.
Still, it's hard to consider what came after as a marked improvement for the country.
Once the Constitution was in place, overall political debate was indeed shaped by Cold War events and influences; but the document itself is arguably a pinnacle achievement of political theory, pushing representative democracy and collective responsibility to their limits.
The left-wing coalition (which was actually missing a piece of the socialists) didn't even get close to winning. It got 31% of the vote.
So how come we never hear that Eastern Europe became communist democratically? After all, they can point to election numbers as you do. Well, the Red Army occupied them some say. But the US armed forces occupied Italy - they still do. Well, the USSR, a foreign power meddled in the elections. The US and CIA admit how massively they meddled in Italy's 1948 (and subsequent) elections.
I can easily say that the non-communist and non-communist aligned parties in Eastern Europe "didn't even come close to winning" after World War II and the people of those countries democratically decided to become communist. After all, Hungary became communist after World War I without Russian intervention, a fact few in the West remember.
It's odd to see the US and CIA admitting after decades they interfered in and fixed the Italian 1948 elections, yet you still hold up the phony results, yet everyone can easily discount the elections in eastern Europe after World War II, where Russia simply did the same thing the US did.
In any case, an argument that Eastern Europe's Communist governments were illegitimate cannot be countered by saying that Western Europe's governments were illegitimate, no matter how true that may be.
In the preceding 1946 elections, the Communists got 19% and the Socialists got 20%, for a total of 39%.
In the 1948 elections, FDP (Communists + part of Socialists) got 31%, while the rest of the Socialists (including the man who was the leader of the Socialists in the previous elections) got 7%, for a total of 38%.
In the following 1953 elections, the Communists got 23%, the Socialists (who broke out of the failed FDP alliance) got 13%, for a total of 36%.
So we have 39% -> 38% -> 36%. You are arguing that the expected mid-point of that series would have been 51%, had it not been for the US fixing the elections. That is a Reptilian-level conspiracy theory.
As you say, in some countries, the official (purely symbolic) head of state has no real power (pointless in other words). That's OK-ish. I'd rather not have a symbolic president. But the main point is to not make the position hereditary.
Germany's president, whilst largely ceremonial, actually has some (residual) power by the way, but it's a 5-year term. Not elected by the people, however, which is a shame. For example, Finland's president is.
The situation in Japan is pretty stable. Why mess with success? And if the emperor has no power, why does it matter if the position is hereditary?
It matters because a hereditary head of state position (actually, any governmental/establishmentarian position) is a terrible symbol in what should be an egalitarian society, no matter if you have political power or not. I don't know how to put this more succinctly.
Why should society be egalitarian? Nature isn't.
Why shouldn't society recognise the heirs of great men specially?
I think that the ideal government has voices for the great mass of the people; for the magnates; and for a monarch. The U.K. system — until Tony Blair destroyed it — was good for exactly this, although the removal of the Lords' ability to block legislation, and the addition of life peers were recent mistakes.
It's a bit more complicated than that, to be fair. A big part of de Gaulle's motivation for the semi-presiential system of the Fifth Republic was due to the instability of the parliamentary system of the Third and Fourth Republics. Whatever else you might say about de Gaulle, the Fifth Republic has been remarkably stable and orderly compared to the regimes that preceded it after the revolution.
Even the same person can see a big difference depending on the popular perception of their power--see Hillary Clinton's favorability rating after she resigned as Secretary of State vs. now when she is running for President.
If Charles, as king, tries to stick his nose in things, he will be unpopular. But if he remains a distant figurehead, I bet he will still be more popular than the elected politicians in Australia.
I'm not intimately familiar with British law, and there may be other reasons why his divorce would make him ineligible, but it would not be for the same reasons that Edward was considered controversial.
Also, as regards Henry VIII and divorce, apparently he used the power of the newly created Church of England to annul his marriages, rather than actually get divorced.
His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question.
When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders.
Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife.
His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard.
The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died.
So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.
I do live in a 1000-year-old constitutional monarchy after all and that's the pro arguments I tend to hear.
"Good for tourism" is another one.
Edward VII played a large role in setting the conditions for the Entente Cordial, in large part by partying a lot in France - activities a politician could never get away with even today. That cultural and ambassadorial role set the scene for the end to a 1000 years of Anglo-French conflict. More recently the current Queen has played major roles in healing the divisions of conflict, most recently with her trip to the Republic of Ireland.
Elderly politicians are still divisive in their election, regardless of whether they're elected by the public or some body. Their actions have to be viewed through the prism of political cynicism and the potential for advancing the interests of their party. Whereas a 90 year old woman who still carries out a punishing schedule of public duties presents a far more inspiring example of duty and loyalty. If no-one voted for you then you are beholden to no-one.
The Australian constitutional referendum was cleverly constructed to keep the monarchy. TWO republican options were offered in order to split the republican side, and both were engineered for short-term aggrandizement of politicians rather than give the country a sound constitution. So a "first, do no harm" strategy ended up with the most votes.
I think a system like the Germans have is pretty reasonable (though more complicated than Australia needs with only a handful of states none with a huge amount of autonomy). Then again, Australia really only needs a head of state to appoint a PM and greet visiting potentates. Apart from that there isn't much need for a GG. Oh and to consume fancy bird feathers.
Like many I chose "The changes on offer are worse than no change at all."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum...
At this point, the monarchy is the default position, and I think it will stay that way until the monarch does something to piss off the majority of the Australian people.
Nobody goes to Australia to see the Queen.
Frankly, I think we could do worse then to add some hereditary peers to our republican government.
And generally, one sees that it's been a mistake.
A constitutional monarch can be a good defense against certain types of democratic failure.
One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to war in Iraq when the people didn't want it. The best example that it doesn't matter is Blair doing the same thing and Elisabeth 2 not doing anything about it.
Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything.
I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.
Otherwise, what is the point of having a head of state?
Sweden is kind-of in the middle. They have their constitution written, but in four documents.
One is the ability to have someone who sees reason or is liked by both sides where there is an opposition party in power.
It sort of makes the PM/officials of government ordinary blokes who would use the trains or a bicycle to get around just like anyone else would. Having someone higher up has an impact of some sort. Most European monarchs have their officials of government go around not in such an isolated way.
There are others such from the ability to influence issues such as poaching to the ability to remove the commercialisation of certain areas (disallowing adverts or free bidding) to the tokens given out to encourage people to be more selfless (chivalry or the 'sir'). Even the ability to remove a government that isn't working, however rarely its done.
I agree it is archaic, there are some really good advantages, my favourite is that elements of a country cannot be sold out for money. While HN is very American-centric, I would advise seeing both points of view on the subject.
There are reasons the constitutional monarchy remains despite numerous (and multiple in the same countries) referendums throughout the world to change that. There is an element of choice in this.
Strangely (to me) people sing the praises of democracy and disparage their existing democratically elected government with the same breath. And most citizens of countries led by monarchs have far less to complain about governance (and not, as many keyboard pundits may guess, because of something crass like they'd get executed for voicing dissent).
I'm not going to claim either system is superior to the other, but I think it's a stretch to call the existence of monarchies "embarrassing"
There's nothing strange about that. The point of democracy is not to make governments great, it's to be able to throw them out when they suck. There's not contradiction in thinking that your government sucks and in being happy about your ability to throw them out.
> And most citizens of countries led by monarchs have far less to complain about governance (and not, as many keyboard pundits may guess, because of something crass like they'd get executed for voicing dissent).
There are plenty of terrible monarchs. And some good ones as well. Monarchy's problem isn't that it makes the ruler bad. It is that if the ruler is bad, there's not much you can do about it.
I do, from a moral point of view, before even going into the than a practical one (even though there are practical reasons as well). I believe that all people should be equal before the law, and that this is the point of the law: replace the arbitrary with the fair and predictable. All people. Not "all except this one family". Both the duties and the rights that royal families have make them unequal, mostly in ways that are favorable to them, but not only.
To take an example from the news item we are talking about, it is absurd that a person may denied from the right to quit his job, even if that job is being the Emperor. It certainly is a fancy job, but a job to which you are compelled by birth and may not leave does not match my conception of a free society, no matter how good the job is. And it certainly goes the other way as well, as royalty comes with its fair share of privileges that are not accessible to others.
I don't think they are the worst, but they definitely have problems. They tend to be very conservative. They tend to heavily favor the upper class. They tend to be more likely to start and maintain terrible wars. And the system encourages civil wars. And the lack of selection means there is no guarantee the monarch is competent, more than just any random person.
Also they don't tend to favour the upper class there's broad support across ideologies and social class that support them. In fact, the republican movements tend to come from upper classes, well true in New Zealand and Australia anyway (not sure of the other monarchies)
I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to their issues and their side of things. Europe has a terrible history of a ridiculously unequal and unfair aristocracy.
Also the 'consuming public tax dollars' argument is incorrect. The monarchy of the UK pays net tax-in through a deal the government did with monarchy 300 years ago (in short the UK government earns a tidy profit (about £300m/y) from the management of their estate in exchange for a small stipend each year, consistently renewed every period). The monarchs of other countries also have their estates that pay for them in a similar way (don't count Spain though)
Perhaps the monarchs favour the upper class though this has changed largely for the positive over the past hundred years. I would hardly say that today it is an unfair aristocracy, though.
On the democracy argument, there have been multiple referendums to put in place a republic but they don't go through.
So I do agree that the monarchy has some influence on the Commonwealth, more than just having "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn".
I've heard the argument that royalty is a net gain in taxes. My point was that they aren't universally popular and there are movements to remove them. Anyway the fact they own lots of land is silly, since it was inherited from centuries ago, when it was originally taken by force. There is nothing stopping the government from cutting them off and continuing to use their land.
It's hard to argue using the popularity argument. In Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the monarch is near universally popular.
The argument for a sovereign head of state is a complex one, the Queen isn't considered as an ordinary family inheriting a lot, its a family which is essentially the head of state and the 'inheritance' goes towards running the country and the benefit of all.
I would understand the disdain from an American perspective, but there's a lot more to it than what is conveyed - the constitutional monarchy system of today isn't like the one 300 years ago, its a wonderful system - to many better than the US system of government, admittedly myself included (I'm an American Politics major if you think there's any bias).
Keep in mind the monarch is there by choice - through democratic vote. As for Australia the 1999 referendum wasn't the first one of its sort either.
This time, he implies he wish to abdicate by saying "When the emperor dies, Japanese economy will face a serious shock, which I want to prevent it", which implies in the time of his death(I don't know the polite way of saying die in English, in Japanese, we have a special polite word for the emperor's death), he dies not as the emperor so the emperor's death doesn't happen(This is just observation. the emperor can't directly say that obviously because the constitution prohibit his political activities.)
It is us, the Japanese, who can change the constitution. To change the Japanese constitution, it requires the national vote.
Also, it is my understanding that the emperor is not, by definition from the constitution, a Japanese person.
The Constitution defines:
The emperor has no political power, his basic human rights is restricted, has no freedom of job choice etc.
Japanese people has political power, basic human rights, freedom of job choices, freedom from being enslaved etc.
In Osaka I saw the expression, "emperor Hirohito succumbed". I found the euphemism quite entertaining at the time.
But to the author of the parent comment, it would probably be best to say 'pass away'
And asking for a change in the law, well THAT is clearly political.
However, I'm sure if you asked all the royalty across the world, I am certain that almost every single one of them wants to remain royalty and find the very institution quaint and traditional and wholesome. Do you think Akihito does not want his son to succeed him?
If the monarch him-/herself suggests that maybe it's time we rethought the whole thing, I'm hopeful that would get people talking about it a bit more. Maybe that could end up being the true power held by the office?
I'm sure she chooses what is "best for the country", but it's not always clear which country that may mean.
The monarchy didn't help with Brexit. I suppose it could help broker coalition governments in a parlimentary systems... though Thailand certainly shows how overly broad lese majeste laws and and strong military can have the opposite effect at least with regards to national unity.
AKA the will of the people. It amazes me that after all the evil we have seen come out of authoritarian rule we still get people bashing democracy.
I can respect the honesty of a monarchy. We have a fake egalitarian society where most of our leaders must either be Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt, Kennedy, or be closely related by marriage. Not to mention the behind the scenes families that control and pay for it all. Its disrespectful to the concept of democracy to view Hillaries coronation party as anything other than a hereditary monarchy ceremony. If it were not for Trump (and thank God for Trump), Jeb's coronation party would have been held the week prior. In that way I can respect a monarchy much more than a fake, false democracy. Someone in the English queen's family will rule after her; thank you for at least being honest about it.
The entire job of candidates is to channel people's discontent into support by sounding revolutionary. Once they're in office, their job becomes supporting the status quo and implementing the long-term designs of the people, as you said, who control and pay for it all.
This iteration, the red team is frustrated and united (having been straight opposition for the past eight years), while the blue team is divided and unenthused (having seen eight years of disappointment under their own banner). So the red team sees a savior, some blue team defects to third parties or (rationally) stays home, and the cycle repeats.
At least my peers will go back to latent libertarianism.
In many countries constitutional monarchs are replaced by de-facto for-life Despots (think Putin and his partner Erdogan), for whom nobody could explain who they are (parents, relatives, children?), where we got them from and what happens when they expire. At least for a Monarch we knew all that with high amount of detail.
Who have no legitimacy whatsoever other than a bit of popular support, a lot of police state support and constant twisting of the law.
Nobility used to be public, now instead of having no nobility we have private nobility behind tall walls.
Right now we don't even know if he has wife or any children and what's they're up to, and also what happens next.
Him calling himself an Emperor is laughable, but having an Emperor with heritage and all the stuff instead of him now looks like an option.
Empirically, constitutional monarchies probably do better than the more moded and congruent systems.
And "modern egalitarian society"? Please. The only reason democracy works in the US is that the media brainwashes people into acquiescing to elite opinion. There was not (and will never be) any egalitarian civilization on earth.
What about Switzerland?
He's an important piece in the political equation of Japan, even as a symbolic emperor. Any changes in his role will involve delicate negotiations between the parties and they are not in a good position now to do that.
Id say it's the head of state -- one person shouldnt have that much power, and the list is even longer! constitutional monarchs do pretty well though, in that they avoid using any of that power to the largest extent that they can.