The Free Democrats and Royal Honours: An Explanation

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The Free Democrats of Talossa would like to dispel some misconceptions that have arisen as to our attitude to the Historic Compromise between monarchy and republicanism in general, and our attitude to the current honours system in particular.

There were two aspects of the recent investiture ceremony presided over by King John, back from "absence without leave", which were not just offensive to the Free Democrats, but seemed designed to provoke, annoy and infuriate us, our partners in Government the New Peculiar Way, and the political majority in general.

The first was the granting of a hereditary peerage to the outgoing Regent.

If there were a competition for "Most Divisive Person in Talossa", now-Baron Alexandreu Davinescu would certainly come in one of the top 2 positions. He is extremely strongly identified with support, some would say sycophancy, towards the Monarchy, and an extremely combative and personally pugnacious attitude towards the Free Democrats and other pro-reform parties. The Baron's insistence on defending not the monarchy but the current occupant of the throne - who has by his actions become the best advertisement for Talossa not to have a life-term monarchy - further cheapens this defense. One Free Democrat (not currently in our party's leadership) describes his record as "sowing divisiveness, spreading doubt, fear mongering , and baiting political opponents".

None of this is to say that his performance as Regent was anything less than competent – indeed, it was a real and welcome improvement upon the King's recent performance. But the award of a Barony glosses over the question of why the job needed to be done at all. The King was giving one of the highest awards in the land to one of his closest political supporters for cleaning up a mess that he, the King, created himself, for absolutely no reason at all that he dares explain to his Kingdom.

Merely serving as a placeholder is not enough, we believe, to deserve elevation to the nobility. Even worse, this "cozy" arrangement between King and King's most loyal follower bears the nasty smell of a "quid pro quo". There is no way of knowing whether an actual bargain was made – service as Regent, and therefore complicity in the King "going AWOL", in exchange for a peerage – which would be a scandal, if true. The mere suspicion cheapens the entire system.

Given all that, this peerage was interpreted as a direct "middle-finger" gesture to our party and our allies. It is to be noticed that the bestowal of a Knighthood upon this same person at the time of Reunision did not attract much opposition, precisely because it was balanced by the same award granted to the other candidate for "Most Divisive Person in Talossa". If the King had deigned to talk his business with us, we might have suggested ways to reward the Regent's service that took account of our sensibilities.

The second, the question of the well-deserved knighthood granted to Sir Gödafrïeu Valcádac'h, is a more nuanced issue.

The Government originally gave the King a recommendation for Sir Gödafrïeu to receive the Order of the Flag (UrB). Under El Lexhatx F.40, the UrB is a National Honour "granted on the advice of the Government" as opposed to the senior Dynastic Honour, the Për la Naziun (UrN), which is wholly in the gift of the King. We had no power to recommend GV for the UrN.

The Government – including the authors of this law – assumed that "granted on the advice of the Government" meant that the King had no discretion, that the King would do what the Government said. This is clearly not how His Majesty interpreted the law. Even worse, based on comments from the Regent, it appears that there has been a deliberate decision by the King not to give any new awards of the Order of the Flag; and therefore, that no recommendations from the Government for this award will be followed.

It was the opinion of some in the Government that the King had broken the law by awarding Sir Gödafrïeu the UrN rather than the UrB, and the possibility of a Cort case was discussed. However, this was rejected, as the last thing we wanted to do was to spoil Sir Gödafrïeu's "special day" or sully his well-deserved award, whatever the initials.

We decided instead to approach the whole subject "obliquely", as the King likes to say. To avoid looking churlish or resentful, we decided to raise the question in principle of whether the King should be required to co-operate more closely with the elected Government on the questions of peerages and honours. That was, for us, the real issue – that the King had shown contempt and disrespect to the elected Government that could have been avoided through prior consultation, or even mitigated by being given some warning.

Instead, this issue has been spun by Baron Davinescu in particular as evidence of some kind of hidden agenda, of bad faith, of sneakiness, or proof that the Compromise is some kind of low-down trick. We might add in passing that the Baron's behaviour here is par for the course from him, and is precisely the reason why we don't think he was the right person to receive a peerage.

After discussion with friendly political opponents, we understand that our "oblique" approach was a blunder, and we should have simply been honest about why we were upset about the recent investiture of honours. We hope that this statement clears a lot of issues up – no doubt the people who were already angry at us will still be angry, but at least for good reasons this time.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

we should have simply been honest about why we were upset about the recent investiture of honours.

I agree.

The Free Democrats of Talossa would like to dispel some misconceptions that have arisen as to our attitude to the Historic Compromise between monarchy and republicanism in general, and our attitude to the current honours system in particular.

Unless your party leader was himself lying about his principled stance, then the facts on the ground aren't changed.  And even if he was lying, the motivation doesn't really seem important.  The important thing is what it revealed about the Historic Compromise.

The Historic Compromise is a fiction because there's no compromise.  Republicans don't feel bound to respect the role of the monarchy in the future; there's no détente on the table.

The Historic Compromise says exactly this: Republicans get most what they want now... and they'll come back for more soon.

[GV]

we should have simply been honest about why we were upset about the recent investiture of honours.

The Historic Compromise says exactly this: Republicans get most what they want now... and they'll come back for more soon.

All the King had to do was his job, and the Historic Compromise would never have passed the Ziu, perhaps.  No going AWOL in August 2020 through this month, even with a Regent. 

He was crisis-free (and hopefully still is!).  He continues to be healthy.  There has been nothing in the years 2020-2021 to stop him from doing his job.

Why can't we have a monarch who wants to do his job?  Why won't John defuse the present political situation and fess up about what was going on with him, because it sure looks like he was sulking when the people in referendum dehereditized the monarchy. 

We know he said work was making him busier than ever, but many of us didn't believe him.

You surely, Alexander, must understand the fifteen-or-so years of growing distrust on the part of many over the man who was made King of Talossa on 14 March 2007.

John Lupul has never reached out to the Talossan Left.  Yet the opportunity still exists for him to do so.

Why does he remain silent?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In September, you said that you thought that His Majesty should appoint a regent if he was unable to discharge his duties.  After all, there had been a "good working relationship" before and so there couldn't be some irredeemable conflict.  But when he appointed me as his regent a month later, you were upset.  And even though you have several times praised my performance on the job, and even though a month ago he returned to his duties and has again been doing a good job, this is being held up as the reason for the push for a presidency?  Yes, I agree that His Majesty should have been more involved over the last year -- and clearly His Majesty agreed too, since he listened to you and appointed me, and has since returned to activity.

But even if you were 100% right and it was wrong for him to listen to you and appoint a regent, and even if His Majesty never "reached out to the Talossan left," Sir GV, that doesn't have any bearing on the Historic Compromise.  It's just another, different thing to talk about.  If you personally think that His Majesty is doing a bad job as monarch and should be replaced, then propose that instead.  If that's your beef, then that's the conversation.

But you and your party don't want to just depose His Majesty because you think he didn't reach out to you enough, Sir GV.  You're proposing changing our system of government.  And there's nothing wrong with that!  If I thought it was the best thing for Talossa, I'd be a Republican, too.  But we need to talk about the changes you want on their merits.  You're not just clearing away the man, you're clearing away the throne.

And on the merits, this is not a compromise.  This is just the latest step, and there will be more to come.  You're not agreeing to some larger bargain about the nature of the monarchy, are you?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Historic Compromise

Keep doing that. It makes the concept look good and you look petty and bitter.

But when he appointed me as his regent a month later, you were upset.

Because you're the Most Divisive Person In Talossa, and you only got the job because you're a brown-noser and because Absentee John thought it would annoy us.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Historic Compromise

Keep doing that. It makes the concept look good and you look petty and bitter.

It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance, which is very similar to what I said in my farewell speech.

Unless there is broad understanding that this is the last change; no more changes to the honors system or any other remaining royal powers; then the Historic Compromise is neither of those things

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

If anything is worth responding to, it's this: John once carried out the functions of the monarchy adequately. In recent years, he has become interested (as his actions demonstrate) in nothing at all but protecting his own power; and in thumbing his nose at those who would take away or hold him responsible for the exercise of that power.

Sacking him, and just replacing him with someone else who would be corrupted by the power and trappings of the monarchy into thinking they've got the Mandate of Heaven and have the right to treat the rest of Talossa like inferiors - just like John and Ben were - would be a waste of time. John is not, or was not, a bad man; he's been corrupted by 15 years at the head of a bad system. Far better to change the system so that - for example - we could keep John as King but he would be required to behave, and to act in concert and consultation with the elected Government.

The Historic Compromise is precisely the agreement between reformist and conservative forces in Talossa about just how much freedom of action the King should have, and just what kind of sanctions await if he (for example) starts displaying outrageous favouritism to a deeply unpopular brown-noser.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think there are reasonable criticisms to make of His Majesty.  I think that during much of 2020, he was too inactive.  Of course, I also would vote to give him the slack we gave to everyone else on the planet during the global pandemic, but he should probably have been more active in the two years before that, too.  This inactivity also contributed to a low level of communication.  As Sir Cresti once observed, many of us only have a limited amount of "Talossa time."  When His Majesty was not around enough, it seems like he was seldom able to follow all legislative debate and warn against its problems.  At times, he would only present his concerns or arguments when a bill was presented to him for signature and he would veto it.  I don't think that was good practice or fair.

All of these criticisms are right and reasonable, and I have made them myself.  I was glad when His Majesty appointed a regent to address them last year, and I did my absolute best in the role.  I think I did okay.  And I was even gladder when His Majesty fired me and took up his duties once again.

But so many other criticisms are so wildly overblown or outright manufactured.  And I think that is unfair.

For example, recently, the Seneschal demanded immediately after the passage of the sixth Clark that His Majesty announce his decision on the two disputed bills within a couple of days.  The king is given until the end of the month, but those nine days were too long.  If he failed to decide immediately, it was because His Majesty was trying to "obstruct campaigning!"  One of the bills included his abdication, but anything but a snap decision would be considered a partisan attack!  It was obvious nonsense, just ginned-up and manufactured outrage.  It was spin.

The Seneschal says that the proposed presidency is "about just how much freedom of action the King should have," and their answer is that he should have none, just as soon as they can arrange it.  Because in this "compromise," they have agreed to give nothing.  Not a jot or tittle, beyond a moment's delay.  And so she has been desperately trying to avoid the real topic as much as possible, ever since we found that out.  She would much prefer to talk about me, thus the name-calling.  She slings personal insults at will, even while clutching her pearls at every imaginable (or imagined) slight, because if she can just start a fight then maybe people will tune out.

Over and over again, I have pointed out that Republicans plan to keep on attacking the monarchy.  They have already announced their next move: they're going to strip the honours system from the king and put it under Government control.  The FDT and other supporters of the proposed presidency do not consider themselves bound by any deal.  They feel free to come back with the knife and keep on cutting, whittling things down until they're happy.

This is no compromise.  Monarchists are getting nothing, while Republicans are getting most of what they want -- and they plan to come back for the rest, soon.  No one should be distracted by insults or spin.

[Françal I. Lux]

Over and over again, I have pointed out that Republicans plan to keep on attacking the monarchy.  They have already announced their next move: they're going to strip the honours system from the king and put it under Government control.  The FDT and other supporters of the proposed presidency do not consider themselves bound by any deal.  They feel free to come back with the knife and keep on cutting, whittling things down until they're happy.

Not a presidency (FRIENDLY REMINDER)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't find it productive lump things together so clumsily this way. In the interest of nuance, I have no intentions of reneging on a deal struck in good faith and I suspect many in my party and those who support this compromise are of the same mind. We're not all scheming lefties callously planning the demise of conservative in Talossa. If American politics have taught me anything lately it's that bipartisanship is a fundamental part of representative democracy. As far as I know, this compromise is written by both the government and the opposition and since it's the one we're talking about it's clearly the best solution they can hash out. If and when it passes it'll have my full throated endorsement and I will defend it against anyone (If it fails however, I will persist on the issue of reform—NOT ABOLITION—to an annoying degree.)

The compromise is a good deal. The monarch may reign with dignity and honor charged with leading the rituals of our country and STILL be accountable to the citizens of the realm. We can have both.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Not a presidency (FRIENDLY REMINDER)

I think that the label more exactly expresses the sense of the office, which will have periodic partisan elections.  I know the president will still have the label "king," technically, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground about it.  You could call any office the "king," after all, right?  If the bill established a one-year term and stripped the remaining royal powers, then you could still call it a king.  But the word has a colloquial meaning here, too.  That's the one I'm using.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't find it productive lump things together so clumsily this way. In the interest of nuance, I have no intentions of reneging on a deal struck in good faith and I suspect many in my party and those who support this compromise are of the same mind.

Okay, but right now the only "deal" is that you guys get most of what you want now, right?  You might personally say right now that you don't feel like you want to -- for example -- shorten the term of the president, but you don't feel bound by the deal to reject such a bill, do you?

If there are larger terms, then they should be spelled out so we all know the actual agreement.  Your party leaders have made it extremely clear, though, that there is no binding deal beyond the plain text.  And General Davinescu has already been very forthright about how he thinks, as a matter of principle, that the honours system should be put under Government authority and he would be moving to make that happen.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Not a presidency (FRIENDLY REMINDER)

I think that the label more exactly expresses the sense of the office, which will have periodic partisan elections.  I know the president will still have the label "king," technically, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground about it.  You could call any office the "king," after all, right?  If the bill established a one-year term and stripped the remaining royal powers, then you could still call it a king.  But the word has a colloquial meaning here, too.  That's the one I'm using.

You cant have it both ways. Either the titles is arbitrary, or they arent. You are mixing the two together however you feel like whenever it suits your argument and I am extremely annoyed that you're quoting me (not in this case but you've namedropped me before) in order to substantiate (or try to substantiate) your equivocation fallacy.

Because yes, the two titles have no deeper inherent meanings in PolSci. This does not mean that you're free to call any King a President or vice versa whenever you feel like it, it means that an elected King is no less regal than than a hereditary one, and that a an unelected President for Life is no less presidential than a regularly elected and term-limited one. A King is a King because hes called a King. A President is a President because theyre called a President. This inherent arbitrariness of titles isnt unique to heads of states by the way. Why is the head of government called a Prime Minister in the UK, a Chancellor in Germany and Austria and a Seneschal in Talossa? No reason, the titles just are what they are. The roles that they all fulfil is roughly the same though.

The fact that elected Kings exist and that presidents are usually thought of as elected (as an example for a hereditary presidency, see North Korea) does not make your insistance on therefore calling any elected King a "colloquial" President any less fallacious.

As a side note, and this isnt directed at you specifically but rather thats something I've noticed a lot recently, just because the HC envisions elections every 7 years doesnt mean that we would get a new monarch every time. There is no term limit, and the incumbent can be reelected as many times as they like. And just because there are elections, it doesnt follow that the elections are automatically going to be partisan.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In a technical sense, the titles are arbitrary: "the two titles have no deeper inherent meanings in PolSci," as you say.

In a colloquial sense, they are not.  They are understood to imply things.  A president has regular partisan elections, a king holds office for life.  Now mileage may vary on all colloquial things, but I don't think it actually is varying here.

I think that people who like the proposed office would strongly prefer the label of "king" because it suggests that the change is less dramatic and because it might not scare off some people who generally prefer monarchy.

I think that people who don't like the proposed office would prefer to call it a "presidency" because it more closely aligns with general expectations about that label and because it highlights how significant the change will really be.

I don't really have much interest in this debate, by the way, but we've had it so many times now!  Someone says that this really seems like a presidency, and then they get snippily corrected that there are all kinds of kings and just look at history of the Holy Roman Empire and so on.  But that's just people purposefully misunderstanding the sense in which the word is used (to try to keep the branding they prefer).

Because yes, the two titles have no deeper inherent meanings in PolSci. This does not mean that you're free to call any King a President or vice versa whenever you feel like it, it means that an elected King is no less regal than than a hereditary one, and that a an unelected President for Life is no less presidential than a regularly elected and term-limited one. A King is a King because hes called a King. A President is a President because theyre called a President. This inherent arbitrariness of titles isnt unique to heads of states by the way. Why is the head of government called a Prime Minister in the UK, a Chancellor in Germany and Austria and a Seneschal in Talossa? No reason, the titles just are what they are. The roles that they all fulfil is roughly the same though.

Sure, but when people say "president," they don't usually mean a "president-for-life."  Indeed, most people would say that a president-for-life seems more like... a king!

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

In a technical sense, the titles are arbitrary: "the two titles have no deeper inherent meanings in PolSci," as you say.

In a colloquial sense, they are not.  They are understood to imply things.  A president has regular partisan elections, a king holds office for life.  Now mileage may vary on all colloquial things, but I don't think it actually is varying here.

I think that people who like the proposed office would strongly prefer the label of "king" because it suggests that the change is less dramatic and because it might not scare off some people who generally prefer monarchy.

I think that people who don't like the proposed office would prefer to call it a "presidency" because it more closely aligns with general expectations about that label and because it highlights how significant the change will really be.

Have you considered that insisting on colloquial definitions is inappropriate in this case? Because it is. And have you considered that the "colloquial definitions" that youve been campaigning for are a bit American? The "partisan elections" bit stands out for example, because German presidential elections are not usually partisan.

I don't really have much interest in this debate, by the way, but we've had it so many times now!  Someone says that this really seems like a presidency, and then they get snippily corrected that there are all kinds of kings and just look at history of the Holy Roman Empire and so on.  But that's just people purposefully misunderstanding the sense in which the word is used (to try to keep the branding they prefer).

Well, I'm not "purposefully misunderstanding" anything. I am just annoyed when people use "colloquial" definitions when formal ones would be more appropriate. I dont go to a Maths professor and argue that my colloquial definition of "group" is just as valid at the formal mathematical one in the contexts of Mathematics. I am annoyed every time when Americans insist that the terms "Republic" and "Democracy" are mutually exclusive by their colloquial American definitions, going so far as to call the United Kingdom a "republic with a King"!!! I'm sure I'm not the only one who has witnessed these people, right? The "America isnt a Democracy, its a Republic" crowd. As far as I understand it, the American education system is to blame for that one, but I digress. As long as you incessantly misuse these terms and play into the fact that American laypeople dont know any better, you will provoke these kinds of corrections. If you dont like it then, well, thats on you.

Sure, but when people say "president," they don't usually mean a "president-for-life."  Indeed, most people would say that a president-for-life seems more like... a king!

...no, they would not. Presidents for life are not kings, not even in the "colloquial" American understanding. They would be called dictators or whatever maybe, but not kings.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Have you considered that insisting on colloquial definitions is inappropriate in this case? Because it is. And have you considered that the "colloquial definitions" that youve been campaigning for are a bit American? The "partisan elections" bit stands out for example, because German presidential elections are not usually partisan.

I think it's pretty Amerocentric, yes -- I've said that before.  That's the thing about different sense of a word... they can also vary from place to place.  So that's also why I've tried to be as scrupulously clear as possible whenever this is brought up, because it's understandable any which way you want to approach it.  I wouldn't bring it up at all if people didn't keep trying to "correct" others!  Only one of the two of us is trying to "insist" on a particular way of speaking about this.

Well, I'm not "purposefully misunderstanding" anything. I am just annoyed when people use "colloquial" definitions when formal ones would be more appropriate. I dont go to a Maths professor and argue that my colloquial definition of "group" is just as valid at the formal mathematical one in the contexts of Mathematics.

Sure, but we're not in a poli-sci classroom and we're not (most of us) experts in it.  Just as it would be rude to charge into a maths classroom and tell the professor that ackshually group can mean many things, it would be equally rude for her to keep loudly announcing during a party that people should stop referring to the "groups" for the party games since ackshually group means something formal and specific, right?

Ideally, we could stop trying to tell other people how to speak, and focus on understanding each other, instead.

I am annoyed every time when Americans insist that the terms "Republic" and "Democracy" are mutually exclusive by their colloquial American definitions, going so far as to call the United Kingdom a "republic with a King"!!! I'm sure I'm not the only one who has witnessed these people, right? The "America isnt a Democracy, its a Republic" crowd. As far as I understand it, the American education system is to blame for that one, but I digress.

That does sound tedious, just like most debates about semantics, and the occasional American insistence that there's only one way to do things is also annoying.  My sympathies.

Sure, but when people say "president," they don't usually mean a "president-for-life."  Indeed, most people would say that a president-for-life seems more like... a king!

...no, they would not. Presidents for life are not kings, not even in the "colloquial" American understanding. They would be called dictators or whatever maybe, but not kings.

I'd say that most people would agree that dictator would also more accurately capture the real role of a "president-for-life."  But notice how you're also agreeing with me about the fact that "president" does actually imply something beyond the job title itself!

Tangentially, TVTropes has a helpful and relevant page that might interest you, relying heavily on the technical and colloquial senses of all of these words.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The "partisan elections" bit stands out for example, because German presidential elections are not usually partisan.

I have to confess that I don't know much about German presidential elections, but Wikipedia suggests that they usually are partisan.

The result of the election is often determined by party politics. In most cases, the candidate of the majority party or coalition in the Bundestag is considered to be the likely winner. However, as the members of the Federal Convention vote by secret ballot and are free to vote against their party's candidate, some presidential elections were considered open or too close to call beforehand because of relatively balanced majority positions or because the governing coalition's parties could not agree on one candidate and endorsed different people, as they did in 1969, when Gustav Heinemann won by only 6 votes on the third ballot. In other cases, elections have turned out to be much closer than expected. For example, in 2010, Wulff was expected to win on the first ballot, as the parties supporting him (CDU, CSU and FDP) had a stable absolute majority in the Federal Convention. Nevertheless, he failed to win a majority in the first and second ballots, while his main opponent Joachim Gauck had an unexpectedly strong showing. In the end Wulff obtained a majority in the third ballot. If the opposition has turned in a strong showing in state elections, it can potentially have enough support to defeat the chancellor's party's candidate; this happened in the elections in 1979 and 2004. For this reason, presidential elections can indicate the result of an upcoming general election. According to a long-standing adage in German politics, "if you can create a President, you can form a government."

It's Wikipedia, though, so I don't know reliable that is.

I'm not much of a political scientist at all, obviously!  I am sure there must be some periodically elected presidencies out there, holders of some significant power, that are not at all partisan.  I'm just not aware of them myself, and that seems like an unlikely outcome here.