Case in point: In Japan Prime Minister Abe wanted to change the constitution to allow Japan to engage in external conflicts if allies were in danger. The emperor of Japan suddenly said, "I'm old, you know. I think I want to retire, but there is no constitutional law that will allow me to abdicate. Please write this law ASAP". Prime Minister Abe does not have resources to do both constitutional changes at the same time...
The emperor of Japan is really awesome.
I guess they learned from the last few times when military juntas took control of Japan and burned everything to the ground, in the end.
> Monarchs [...] often end up as the most popular political figures of their republics.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think there's something wrong with that statement :p
I'm going to... stick my neck out... and venture that republics have usually got rid of their monarchs.
Har har, yeah, point taken, but many constitutional monarchies are de facto republics. The UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway. I was trying to distinguish from the hereditary monarchies that aren't republican, like the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
Re:Who controls glibc?
by dragonwriter on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @05:32PM
(#17025372)
> Har har, yeah, point taken, but many constitutional monarchies are de facto republics.
No, they are just representative democracies. Which aren't coextensive with republics: you can be either without being the other.
Monarchs exert soft power pretty much constantly, with public appearances, knighthoods, and recognition of great deeds. They often end up as the most popular political figures of their republics. So while monarchs are a fossil species in modern governments (since WWI), they retain enough of the royal prerogative to exercise those paper rights it when it actually matters. I think we're all second-guessing RMS here because he's using the perogative in a situation where it truly doesn't matter.