Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
(Post 779155)
I have to admit I'm not all that well versed in the ins and outs of the Australian government but if your relationship to the UK is anything like Canada's I would find it disturbing that there was a person beholden to another government who could dissolve my government whenever they felt like it, even if their position was usually regarded as ceremonial. So I guess that means if I were Australian I'd want to become a republic.
|
An elected de facto monarch meant to be reined in by checks an balances but gradually increases their power, versus an unelected monarch with little by way of formal regulations but wouldn't dare put a foot out of line because there'd be so much backlash? You confusing legal power with real power.
Don't get me wrong, I think the monarchy should be abolished (from the point of view of a Brit talking about the legal and hereditary position of the monarch in the UK) and see the primary arguments of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "but think of the tourism revenue!" as being cop outs that stand in the way of democratic progress but judging from the comment you made and the fact your location is in the US (by which I make the assumption that you've lived in a republic all or the vast majority of your life) I think you're somewhat blinkered as to the reality of the situation.
Generally speaking the person with the executive powers signs bills into law or vetoes them, declares war and (in the case of the monarchy) agrees to the creation of each new government and has the power to dissolve them at will. Functionally speaking in a monarchy the option to go against Government will almost never be used because of the furore it would create. A President, with claim to democratic mandate, will in modern times be much more active in what they do. Compare the last use of the executive veto in Britain (300 years ago) to the last use of the executive veto in the US (July 15 '08, March 8 '08 if you only want to count successful use of the veto). The power of the monarchic figure is simply not as supreme as you suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruitonica
(Post 779173)
Take the Whitlam affair, our elected Prime Minister was dismissed by someone whose position was not at all democratically decided.
|
Okay.
Gough Whitlam is democratically elected Prime Minister (in so much as you can be within the Westminster system, though that's another debate entirely). In 1974 the current Governor General (who Whitlam had himself selected) retires and Whitlam appoints a new Governor General (John Kerr).
In 1975 Whitlam wants to pass a budget, he has control of the House but not the Senate. The opposition in the Senate (a democratically elected body) do not want this bill passed. In doing so funding for the Australian Government is cut off, Whitlam's response is the unpopular idea of borrowing the necessary money from the banks until somebody in opposition crumbles and changes their vote to Aye. This is, understandably, quite undesirable.
Kerr (remember him, appointed by Whitlam) wants to avoid this situation. Appoints the opposition as Prime Minister with sole power to get the budget passed (and therefore allow fun stuff like pensions to be paid) and then immediately dissolves Government entirely and holds new elections, in which Whitlam loses a significant portion of the vote and loses the seats to become Prime Minister.
This was not such a massive failure of democracy. The democratically elected Prime Minister personally appoints someone as Governor General, does something really stupid, the Governor General he himself appointed says "hey man, that's not cool. Let the people decide what they think of you now" and then the public also says "hey man, that's not cool. Take the bench for a bit, you kinda suck."
Also, "someone whose position was not at all democratically decided" is a really poor assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Down
(Post 779206)
We can still have a government based off of the Westminster model, but we don't need a Governor General or the Queen, whose role is strictly ceremonial.
|
Hypothetical situation:
Canada uses the Westminster model and doesn't have a monarchic representative to act has the Head of State. The Prime Minister elect is therefore the Head of State and (by merit of the fact that he's in power and therefore holds a majority of seats and assuming he has an effective whip) can essentially pass whatever he wants.
Some guy, lets call him Reltih, manages to hold a majority of seats. Maybe his party was voted into majority or maybe there was no majority but through coalition he becomes Prime Minister and has a really effective whip. He starts passing laws to make it legal to beat up Muslims (because after 9/11 people are a little more blasé about Islamophobia) and declares that Alaska should be part of Canada (it looks nicer on a map, they speak the same language and hell they were bought of the Russians. BUYING LAND? What an outrage, it looks better on a map of Canada) and begins military proceedings to enact as much. People would act out against it, but Reltih was a smart old chap and created a secret police service that beats up anybody silly enough to do something like protest.
There is no external head of state (no singularly elected President from outside the legislature, no monarchic representative to say "no, that's not gonna happen buddy") to stop all this. Simply put without a monarchy the Westminster system is singularly broken and massively open to abuse.