Glüc
Registered guest
MRPT Founder (August 2011 - May 2018)
Posts: 652
Province: Cézembre
|
Post by Glüc on Apr 14, 2015 0:31:04 GMT 1
I feel as if our stance on the monarchy is contradictory. If we are committed to preserving a hereditary monarchy, then why are we advocating making it easier to remove a hereditary monarch? The opposite is also true; if we want to somewhat placate the ZRT and make it easier to remove inadequate monarchs (which I think is the better route), then we should be less committed to preserving the hereditary monarchy (though not opposed to it). Cheering on the monarchy is the role of the RUMP, trying to tear it down is the role of the ZRT. Our role is making compromises. I don't really feel our platform is contradictory. The basic idea, that we are a Kingdom and that our head of state, which is more a cultural than a political function, does not need to be a partisan elected by popular vote is something I believe we should support. Being critical of the role of the Monarchy or the Monarch is a good thing and thinking about ways to improve the system or make it more sustainable is too, but none of that contradicts supporting the Monarchy. With regards to ways to removing the monarch, I'm not sure where I stand on that. There should be a way to remove the head of state if he/she has lost all legitimacy and is no longer serving the people, but whether the current provisions in the orglaw are adequate for that I dont know. Either way, it would still be a hereditary Monarchy. So I dont think I support the proposed amendment. We have always been a monarchist party and I see no reason to change that.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 14, 2015 3:59:50 GMT 1
I am definitely not anti-monarchy (God save the King!). I as well see no need for a partisan, elected Monarch (if it would even be called a Monarch at that point). However, if we want to make it easier to remove an inadequate monarch (which I support), it stops sounding like a hereditary monarchy. This is because the role of monarch would be bestowed based on competency and not solely on bloodline.
|
|
Glüc
Registered guest
MRPT Founder (August 2011 - May 2018)
Posts: 652
Province: Cézembre
|
Post by Glüc on Apr 15, 2015 23:23:43 GMT 1
If when the King resigns or dies the next King will be Prince Patrick, it would still be a hereditary monarchy, even if its easier to remove him. Ff support for that system, while also being critical, is our position, I think this should be mentioned in our manifesto.
|
|
Glüc
Registered guest
MRPT Founder (August 2011 - May 2018)
Posts: 652
Province: Cézembre
|
Post by Glüc on Apr 23, 2015 1:14:47 GMT 1
So the latest draft manifesto no longer features our support for the monarchy. This could mean two things:
a) We no longer fully support the Monarchy. I think this would be a terrible mistake. The monarchy is perfectly legitimate as it is bound by the constitution and has the support of the people. The cultural and historic value of having a King is more than we would get from a president. It has shown to appeal to and attract new citizens. Plus it is not such a bad idea to have someone who is not partisan, elected to serve whatever majority is in power as our head of state. A lot of good reasons for the continued existence of the Kingdom as a Kingdom. This seems unlikely to me though. Our statutes still mention protecting the Monarchy as one of our goals, the member who proposed the recently passed amendment mentions he is not against the monarchy. I know most of our members are Monarchist, so Im guessing its something else.
b) We are still Monarchist, but we dont say it out loud. I think this would be a mistake as well. From the start, we have always been very clear about our postions, whether they were popular or unpopular. This has chased some people away, but we also benefited from it. We're not a big tent party and we shouldnt want to be. Rather we should tell be clear and transparent about what people get when they vote for us. Apart from this being the right thing to do, this could have tactical benefits. For example, we are in many ways very much alike the new FDA. One of the big differences however, is that while they are unclear about their position with regards to the head of state, we have always been very clear about this. This is an advantage we stand to lose if we stick with this draft manifesto. There is also the risk of it becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. If its not in the manifesto, MCs arent bound by it. We would be more likely to attract republicans as members and less likely to attract monarchists than before. I dont think this is something we should want.
Rather, I really hope someone will come up with an amendment for the second round, with the support of some who voted in favour of the recently passed amendment, to bring back our general position on the Monarchy in our manifesto (the current one focuses only on some specific details), maybe in a different form if thats preferable. I might come up with something myself, but Im not sure that would get much support.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 23, 2015 2:08:23 GMT 1
I may still need to practice my wording, but my intent was never to withdraw our support of the monarchy (or even the hereditary monarchy), but instead make ourselves more pronounced as "Moderate" by emphasizing our stance on compromise.
EDIT: I have submitted a new amendment.
|
|