ANNOUNCING: The Campaign for Keeping The Monarchy The Way It Is

[Ian Plätschisch]

Azul,

In response to various other campaigns being launched in recent days, it is now a fine time to launch The Campaign For Keeping The Monarchy The Way It Is.

Remember that The Way It Is already severely limits the power of the King, compared to the powers he enjoyed five years ago. Over this period, the King lost his absolute veto over Organic Law amendments, his veto over other legislation became much weaker, and the hereditary aspect of the Monarchy was removed.

Contrary to what you might think at first, the people who are now part of the Campaign for an Elected Head of State were not the ones who principally pushed the above reforms. The main sponsor of all three amendments (48RZ14, 50RZ19, and 54RZ28) was in fact me, the very person who stands before you now leading the campaign to protect the remaining powers of the Monarch. It does not take a crusted-on reactionary to believe that the needed reforms have been made and that making further changes would do more harm than good.

Below is part of an article I wrote for La S'chinteia in September outlining why I support the Monarchy and you should as well.
_______________________________________________________________
1.   For Talossa, Democracy is Not the End-All-Be-All

For good reason, powerful Monarchies in "real" nations are largely a thing of the past. When citizens do not really have a choice but to the be subject to the laws of their home country, it is only fair that the People have the ultimate sovereignty over those laws, which clearly rules out the possibility of a Monarchy. Talossa is in a different situation though. To start, citizenship is completely voluntary; no one would become stateless if they were no longer Talossan. Also, let's be honest, being subject to Talossan law has basically no relevance to a Talossan's everyday life, which is lived almost exclusively outside Talossa. Because of this, options for government which would not be palatable to other nations are open to us.

Talossa is a country, sure, but it is also a voluntary association with the goal of letting everyone have a good time (Article I, Section 1 of the Organic Law). Therefore, if we decide that a Monarchy is the form of government best suited to having a good time (and I will later argue that it is), calling the Monarchy undemocratic misses the point. As I said earlier, the typical reasons why a Monarchy with power would be bad don't apply to us, and we have much more to gain from an "enjoyable" government than other countries.


2.   It's Unique and Fun

As I pointed out above, non-figurehead Monarchies are not particularly common anymore. However, the idea of Monarchy still clearly captures the public imagination (I still can't believe how closely Americans follow the drama with the British royal family, for example, and they have almost no power). It is just different from what most people experience in their regular lives, and Talossa is well-positioned to deliver the benefits of a Monarchy (coats of arms, knighthoods, other accoutrements, and overall pomposity) without the obvious downsides that usually accompany it. I thus find it very likely that many immigrants are attracted to the Monarchy, and Talossa would be wasting an opportunity to provide a unique experience to new and existing citizens if it dispensed with that institution.

It is often claimed that a figurehead Monarchy is more than capable of providing the desired pomposity, but there is just something hollow about being awarded a coat of arms from someone whose only job is to award coats of arms. It works better if the Monarch is also responsible, in some small capacity, for the governance of the Kingdom.


3.   Talossa Needs Someone for the Long Term

Talossa currently has only 181 citizens, all of whom must balance Talossa with all of the other things they do in their life, and all of whom can lose interest for various reasons. They drift in and out of activity (but recently, usually just out), and Talossa itself has undeniable semi-comatose periods. This is a problem no "real" country ever faces (that wouldn't even make sense), so we cannot look to other countries for solutions.

The institution of the Monarchy, however, is a Talossan solution to a Talossan problem. If we are searching for the best form of government to ensure Talossa's continued existence, we should give some power to a position whose incentives are long-term rather than short-term. This is what the King is; he can withstand short-term changes in sentiment, but the value of his domain will deteriorate significantly if he does not act properly over the long term. The Cosa, on the other hand, is elected every six months. Its strength is its quick response to the people, but it can be susceptible to enacting politically convenient policies that, rather than fix problems, simply mask them until they are someone else's problems. The King cannot dodge responsibility this way because the problems will always be his problems.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yes, hello, question here.

If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?

[esbornatfiglheu]

Followup.  Aren't there even MORE unique and fun options?  Just about everywhere has/had a king/queen/emperor, etc.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Yes, hello, question here.

If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?

This is a different question to whether the Talossan Monarchy should in principle retain the powers it currently has. Therefore I would not necessarily expect all supporters of this campaign to have the same answer.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Followup.  Aren't there even MORE unique and fun options?  Just about everywhere has/had a king/queen/emperor, etc.

I don't see how the dual head of state plan would actually be more fun. I guess it would add another elected position, which could be fun for some people, but it would also make the Monarchy even less meaningful than it is now. As I said earlier though, it's still better than the other two options.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yes, hello, question here.

If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?

This is a different question to whether the Talossan Monarchy should in principle retain the powers it currently has. Therefore I would not necessarily expect all supporters of this campaign to have the same answer.

Understood. I'm asking for your personal answer here. If Option 3, the Status Quo, wins, that becomes a live issue. (Actually it's an issue in options 2 and 4 as well.)

[Ian Plätschisch]

Yes, hello, question here.

If your option wins, do you consider that John I of the House of Woolley, our absentee monarch, is still a fit and proper person to hold this august position?

This is a different question to whether the Talossan Monarchy should in principle retain the powers it currently has. Therefore I would not necessarily expect all supporters of this campaign to have the same answer.

Understood. I'm asking for your personal answer here. If Option 3, the Status Quo, wins, that becomes a live issue. (Actually it's an issue in options 2 and 4 as well.)

I can see both sides of the issue. One one hand, I have a long record of criticizing the King, and do believe that (if he cannot increase his own activity), if he could step down in favor of someone who could make better use of the Throne, that would probably be an improvement. On the other hand, selecting someone else will be very challenging.

[GV]

"For good reason, powerful Monarchies in "real" nations are largely a thing of the past."

Hmm...  Our monarchy still holds the power of legislative veto.  How is it not powerful, then?

You assume the inherent goodness of every single monarch Talossa will ever have.  Ben went bad.  Dobberpuhl was not fit for purpose.  Florence was not the right personality, though she was much-loved.

How we govern ourselves and how we elect our leaders is a skeletal framework in which society can function.  Of course, the undergirding of any society is adherence to common human decency, but we must put together a system of governance that will make it as difficult as possible for bad actors to flourish.

Keeping the Talossan monarchy the way it is is asking for trouble and playing with fire.

[Ian Plätschisch]

"For good reason, powerful Monarchies in "real" nations are largely a thing of the past."

Hmm...  Our monarchy still holds the power of legislative veto.  How is it not powerful, then?

It is an very weak veto indeed.

You assume the inherent goodness of every single monarch Talossa will ever have.

No I do not. The veto is easily circumvented and the Monarch is not so hard to remove.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

You assume the inherent goodness of every single monarch Talossa will ever have.  Ben went bad.  Dobberpuhl was not fit for purpose.  Florence was not the right personality, though she was much-loved. 

And your saying that goodness can only come from elected officials? Ever heard of the USA, land of the free, home of the brave? Ever heard of Donald trump who has presideded over the worse Pandemic in modern times and has killed thousands upon thousands. Nixon was corrupt and rasict and put in place mass incarceration of people of colour, hoover presided over the wall Street crash, James Buchanan basically started the civil war. And that's just the USA. Need I go on?


You cannot claim that elected heads of state are inherently more vertious when history is littered with horrendous ones

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

And we can get rid of bad elected leaders without an armed uprising.

Talossa was weighed down for years by a King who just stopped caring about Talossa once his political allies ceased to be in power. And now we have a Regent whom no-one voted for but the King, because the King just couldn't GAF about Talossa any more but he didn't have the moral courage to abdicate.

I have to say: even if the status quo wins this election, we will need a new King, and I think we have a majority (between reformists and responsible monarchists) to get one. The thing is that a lot of Talossan monarchism is in bad faith because it's conservatives who like having a conservative King/Regent vetoing the progressive majority's decisions. If we had a radical, even a communist, for King, who shot down a conservative majority's proposals, those guys would switch to being Republicans overnight. The essential failure of imagination is that a King will always be conservative.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

And your saying that goodness can only come from elected officials? Ever heard of the USA, land of the free, home of the brave? Ever heard of Donald trump who has presideded over the worse Pandemic in modern times and has killed thousands upon thousands. Nixon was corrupt and rasict and put in place mass incarceration of people of colour, hoover presided over the wall Street crash, James Buchanan basically started the civil war. And that's just the USA. Need I go on?


You cannot claim that elected heads of state are inherently more vertious when history is littered with horrendous ones

Democracy really is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried, isnt it? Obviously no system is absolutely fool- or tyrant-proof, and you'll never be able to guarantee that only virtuous people will get into office no matter which system you use,

but,

could you imagine what wouldve happened if any of these people you listed had been monarchs for life instead? Four years under a horrible president are, well, horrible, but infinitely better than decades upon decades under a horrible monarch.

[Ian Plätschisch]

If we had a radical, even a communist, for King, who shot down a conservative majority's proposals, those guys would switch to being Republicans overnight. The essential failure of imagination is that a King will always be conservative.

Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards. Of course other conservatives would then support the King, but its not clear to me what else you think they are gaining besides being able to keep the Monarchy itself. Seriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Being conservative in Talossa essentially means being a Monarchist. Therefore it is unavoidable that any King who believes himself to be legitimate would be a conservative by Talossan standards.

If the purpose of the Monarchy is only to preserve the Monarchy, then... that's a logical ourobouros.

Seriously, what distinctly "conservative" policies would there be for a radical King to shoot down?

Okay, I'm imagining myself as King of Talossa, and a neo-RUMP party with a Cosa majority. The first thing I'd do would be to formally abolish the recognition of the aristocracy (no more Dukes or Counts). The second thing I would do would be to issue proclamation after proclamation full of fire-breathing statements on foreign politics - supporting the self-determination of Palestine, cheering on legal and political victories for Trans Rights, giving royal medals of honour to Joe Biden or Reality Winner or whoever else is a hate figure for the US right at the moment. And they couldn't do anything about it, except try to overthrow me.

Past that, I would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like; to suck up all the attention in the room from the elected Government. In such situations, I doubt that anyone would be saying "God Save the King" except sarcastically. The only way out of this is if you argue that a conservative-traditionalist Ziu majority wouldn't actually want to do anything or pass any laws - because that's the ultimate in conservatism - but then that would make the Monarchy the only political actor in Talossa. They wouldn't want that.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, Talossa is a monarchy, and so wanting to conserve established institutions will tend to favor the monarchy.  It's not an ironclad rule, but it's a pretty reasonable line of thought.  It's also not circular, except inasmuch as it's true by definition: if you support existing institutions and the monarchy is an existing institution, then you will probably support the monarchy.

would just "rain on the parade" of every Government initiative or bill passed by the Ziu which annoyed me for whatever reason. The purpose of such dog-in-the-manger tactics would not necessary be to "win" in the sense of stopping anything. The purpose would be to annoy, harass, make Talossa less fun for people I didn't like

Not quite sure I see this point.  I mean, yes, you could try to relentlessly grind everything down that didn't personally please you, until people either got tired or gave up resisting, but you'd probably also drive a ton of people away and you'd have a hard time maintaining any diversity of thought in the country.  Why would you do this?  Not much of that is really "radical" in a Talossan sense, after all, except inasmuch as it corresponds with the word's use in other countries a lot.  Really, only trying to abolish the nobility would fit the bill of all of that.  Unless maybe you're suggesting that a radical monarch would try to destroy the monarchy itself, by doing such a bad job that they reshape the country, even if it ended up driving most people away?  I guess maybe that's true -- a radical monarch could try to do a terrible job on purpose!  I think they would get removed, though.

I don't think anyone's arguing that someone nihilistically focused on their own goals to the exclusion of the good of the country isn't a very real possibility, but there's not really anything that could change that.  That possibility already exists with any office with power, after all.

I wish we weren't having this debate right now, by the way.  It seems myopic.  Obviously I'm a monarchist and the serving regent, so my opinion is hardly surprising, but anything that takes the focus away from our real and pressing problems seems unbelievably foolhardy right now.  We've had one new immigrant in the last six months or so, if I'm reckoning right.  If our immigration process has slowed to that pace, then the track we're on can't possibly be good.  (That's part of why I support the monarchy, of course.  It has historically attracted a ton of our citizens, who think it's interesting and fun in one way or another.)