Peculiar Thoughts inn Re: The Monarchy

[esbornatfiglheu]

Much of the digital ink being spilled around the question of the monarchy seems to fall into two basic areas.  The question of the monarchy ITSELF (ie, monarch v. republican) and the second but related question of THIS monarch (ie, The Wolf v. someone else).  And I think, though they can be discussed separately, it might behoove us to think structurally about potential reform.

Why do monarchs go inactive?  The Wolf isn't the only one to really do so in Talossan history, Robert II and Florence also had their quiet stints (though in the fast-paced micronational world of 20+ years ago, things were different).  But I would suggest, at least given our current constitutional order, that they do so out of boredom.  Forced into apolitical roles, they are the ostensible guardian of Talossanity but also somewhat removed from it.  The rollicking debates, such as they are, are theirs no more.  Theirs is a job that is cutting ribbons, shaking hands, and being an attractive but useless gewgaw.  At their most active, such as threatening citizens, their involvement at least raises eyebrows if not hackles.

And, in an open and democratic system, that is as it should be.  For the health of the society, an unfair thumb on the scale is not good.  But I can imagine that it makes the view from the throne at least somewhat boring.  Having attained the highest office there is, and guaranteed it IN PERPETUITY, there are no more worlds left to conquer.  I would be unsurprised if Alexander wept.

I cannot speak to the motivations of the current rump on the seat.  But I can speak to his actions, or lack thereof.  They don't speak of an engaged or interested person.

I think this is essentially built into the Talossan monarchy, down to the studs.

Opposition to limited-term monarchy is that this simply makes the individual a "president," and that's no fun... because having a monarchy is fun.  But how much good is a dead rump on the seat really doing?  Who is having fun here?  I'm not even convinced the monarch is.

If you want a dedicated monarch, you need to incentivize activity for someone to fill the role well.  And without limited terms/potential reelection to stimulate responsiveness, what is a self-respecting people to do? 

I would like to bring back up an idea the NPW had floated before, that of the fragile throne.  What if the durability of the institution was flipped from the default?  Let's make the sitting monarch almost impossible to remove, but the INSTITUTION of the monarchy easy to abolish.  The sitting monarch is incentivized to protect the institution, as opposed to ride the security of their own seat.  A failure of the individual becomes a failure of the institution.

It would also be interesting to create a bifurcated constitution.  A greater constitution guaranteeing rights, freedoms, and certain responsibilities would run as a relative constant in Talossan life, but with the accession of each new monarch, a lesser constitution is negotiated between the monarch and the people that spells out the operations of the government for the time.  Talossa is NEVER more active than when it is debating its own makeup, afterall.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I would just add that the "incentive to become an inactive drag on the office" applies to, not only the monarchy, but the Uppermost Cort.

[esbornatfiglheu]

I would just add that the "incentive to become an inactive drag on the office" applies to, not only the monarchy, but the Uppermost Cort.

Agreed.  And again, it's part of the design of the institution.

Life is long, if you play your cards right.  Even a few years can be an ETERNITY in micronational terms.  Life appointments, no matter to where, are going to be a problem.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

As I've said before, we should measure Talossa in "dog years"; if a legislative term is 6 months rather than the 3-5 years of other countries we should inflate what a reasonable term in office is by a factor of 6 to 10. Or to put it another way: the incumbent King has overseen as many governments as the late Queen Elizabeth II did in her 60+ year reign. That's enough.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Part of my own Peculiarity in terms of Talossan thinking is that we have built institutions that do not reflect the reality of the situation.  Which... We ARE a nation founded in the bedroom of a Milwaukee adolescent.  There needs to be some pontifical whimsy.  Otherwise, what are we really here for?

BUT, I think we need to start thinking of some of our issues and problems in terms of small group dynamics.  Our operations, and the interactions that surround them, are much more in line with those of a fraternal lodge or civic organization as opposed to the majesty of the contemporary nation-state.  IE, we keep thinking macro when we need to start thinking micro.

Life appointments are death sentences, at least in terms of activity.  No carrot and minimal stick.