From: mingo@world.std.com (Charles H Mingo)
Subject: Re: Re: .edu, .ca, .au = ?, net abbreviations
Summary:  Republic vs. Monarchy
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:05:10 GMT

ecsgrt@latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin) writes:
>
>Indeed, is Britain a monarchy or a republic, in the nature of the
>government?  It is I suggest, in effect a republic with a powerless "monarch"
>("She reigns but may not rule.") and a residual aristocratic upper house that
>became essentially toothless in about 1910.

	I think you're confusing a monarchy with and *absolute* monarchy,
which is only one possible form of monarchy.  Britain is a monarchy simply
because it has a heriditary head of state (by this definition, North Korea
is monarchical, too).  The Queen actually exercises more authority than you
give her credit for, as when she decided which of two Conservative Party
factions would be permitted to form a government in 1956.  The Queen's
role as constitutional umpire is diminished by the fact that the parliamentary
system tends to produce majority governments, even in the most unlikely
circumstances.  If Britain went for a proportional representation system
(as the Liberal Democrats, and soon Labour, are calling for), then she
would be much more involved.

>From the Australian perspective - debating republicanism as we did Federation
>a hundred years ago - it seems to me that whether we have an hereditary or
>an elected or an appointed Head of State - or none at all (why not become the
>unique country with no flag and no head of state?) - it is essential that the
>position be utterly powerless - even to "anoint" a newly elected
>government - let the parliament make up its own mind.  After all, it's in the
>parliament that a government must find support.
>
>I don't see the value of a republic if a President can sack a Government,
>as in France.  I'd rather have no "monarch" and no "president".  Better

	The French President is also elected.  You are assuming that the
only source of legitimate authority comes from a legislature.  There is
no requirement for this.

	The French president got the kind of authority he now exercises
because the parliamentary system of the Fourth Republic was incapable
of putting forward a stable government that could command a certain
majority, much as the Italian system presently functions.  In the 1950's,
the stresses of decolinization (Vietnam and Algeria) simply proved too
much for the (Socialist-led) parliamentary governments to handle, resulting
in the transfer of power to a presidential system led by De Gaulle.  The
French didn't start out with an abstract definition of "republic" and
then write their constitution accordingly; they developed a working
political system, which they call a "republic" for want of a better name.

>still, let's have a true "Res Publica" ("People's Thing") in which all
>major decisions must be put to public debate and agreed upon before
>implementation.  If this prevents decisions being made, then that's
>the best possible outcome.  ;-)  Seriously, Government decision making
>rarely does Australia any good, so let's abolish it.  half ;-)

	Well, in fact, that is exactly what the French Constitution provides:
the President can enact laws or even amend the constitution by plebiscite,
bypassing the legislature.  Plebescites are usually anathma to parliamentary
systems because they allow the government to legislate without parliament,
which rather deprives the legislature of its raison d'etre.


-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Charlie Mingo					Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 
2209 Washington Circle #2				  mingo@cup.portal.com
Washington, DC  20037	    AT&T:  202/785-2089 	  mingo@world.std.com
Xref: sparky comp.misc:1828 comp.dcom.fax:803 misc.misc:2376