With regard to 24RZ26, the "Non-Hereditary Monarchy Amendment", I have various thoughts, and I've been puzzling for a month about how or whether to express them. Herewith a few considerations.
First, suppose we pass this and actually try to live under it for a while. OK, a King dies or abdicates, and presto! the nation is faced with the highest-stake election possible -- a lifetime appointment to the most prestigious office in Talossa. It seems doubtful that everyone will agree on who the next King should be, so the election will likely be contested, and if recent Talossan experience is any guide, it will be pretty hotly contested. Now, in a "normal" election, a periodical one (like Talossan General Elections or the American Presidential election), the losing side can say "We'll get 'em next time" and start getting their ducks in order for the next election; but if you're electing a *King*, there won't *be* a next time (most likely) until many years have passed. So we'll be left in a situation where the losing side has no way foreseeable to recover from the loss, and where the winning side controls the Crown probably for the next generation or two. Which will lead pretty quickly to most of the losing side simply quitting politics (and probably Talossa) altogether.
To remedy this, of course, it will be suggested that the King have a set term of office, three years or five years or whatever. At which point we should simply change the name of the office from "King" to "President", and the name of the country to The Talossan Republic, and have done with it. I mean, why pretend?
Then again, an elected King -- things being what they are -- will owe his office to one party or another, and is unlikely to act in a non-partisan way. (It's hard to do, believe me.) This is especially true if he's coming up for re-election at some point, and sees that his prospects of continuing as King depend on his effectively toadying to the people who elected him in the first place. An elected Monarchy is a partisan Monarchy, and there's no way I can see even to mitigate that.
The preamble to this Bill says in part, "WHEREAS The best person to become the next Monarch is usually not going to be the child of the previous one". I think that's very likely true. It's also true that democratic processes like partisan elections are unlikely to come up with "the best person" for any particular office; we in the United States have been marvelling in recent years at the ability of elections to turn up some of the *least* qualified people. But a hereditary monarchy has this very great advantage, that because everyone knows who the next Monarch is going to be, nobody is surprised or disappointed or feels unfairly outmaneuvered by the results of a transition.
I'll have more thoughts on this. I've had an amazingly busy month of work, and it doesn't seem to be lightening any, but I will get some more ideas down. Meanwhile, of course,
Ça el Regeu non piaça.
-- John Regeu
First, suppose we pass this and actually try to live under it for a while. OK, a King dies or abdicates, and presto! the nation is faced with the highest-stake election possible -- a lifetime appointment to the most prestigious office in Talossa. It seems doubtful that everyone will agree on who the next King should be, so the election will likely be contested, and if recent Talossan experience is any guide, it will be pretty hotly contested. Now, in a "normal" election, a periodical one (like Talossan General Elections or the American Presidential election), the losing side can say "We'll get 'em next time" and start getting their ducks in order for the next election; but if you're electing a *King*, there won't *be* a next time (most likely) until many years have passed. So we'll be left in a situation where the losing side has no way foreseeable to recover from the loss, and where the winning side controls the Crown probably for the next generation or two. Which will lead pretty quickly to most of the losing side simply quitting politics (and probably Talossa) altogether.
To remedy this, of course, it will be suggested that the King have a set term of office, three years or five years or whatever. At which point we should simply change the name of the office from "King" to "President", and the name of the country to The Talossan Republic, and have done with it. I mean, why pretend?
Then again, an elected King -- things being what they are -- will owe his office to one party or another, and is unlikely to act in a non-partisan way. (It's hard to do, believe me.) This is especially true if he's coming up for re-election at some point, and sees that his prospects of continuing as King depend on his effectively toadying to the people who elected him in the first place. An elected Monarchy is a partisan Monarchy, and there's no way I can see even to mitigate that.
The preamble to this Bill says in part, "WHEREAS The best person to become the next Monarch is usually not going to be the child of the previous one". I think that's very likely true. It's also true that democratic processes like partisan elections are unlikely to come up with "the best person" for any particular office; we in the United States have been marvelling in recent years at the ability of elections to turn up some of the *least* qualified people. But a hereditary monarchy has this very great advantage, that because everyone knows who the next Monarch is going to be, nobody is surprised or disappointed or feels unfairly outmaneuvered by the results of a transition.
I'll have more thoughts on this. I've had an amazingly busy month of work, and it doesn't seem to be lightening any, but I will get some more ideas down. Meanwhile, of course,
Ça el Regeu non piaça.
-- John Regeu