No I'm certainly not. The force of my vote is very much an indicator of Maniac. You may see it differently, but I see it like that dear sir.

A monarchy can be removed perfectly easily. The constitution allows for changes to that constitution. That no one has had the courage or will to change it, is simply a way of the people saying it supports the monarchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMwVsY2FnD8

*"of democracy, Maniac."
xcuse me

Within political science, democracy often has five dimensions:
Effective participation / Voting equality at the decisive stage / Civic understanding /
Full control of the political agenda / Inclusiveness.

In measuring democracy, systems with proportional representation tend to score higher since less votes are discarded and the end result is more conform actual voting preferences in the population. Monarchies or not monarchies is usually a non-issue democratically speaking.

The reasons I think the Dutch system is good is mainly the PR electoral system really. Ilike the monarchy for the reason that redhouse mentioned earlier, that they tend to emphasise what binds us rather than what divides us. And, their influence in NL during WW2 proved that they play a unique role in times of great crisis. No other government in exile could have been half as effective without the Queen.

@redhouse - "A monarchy can be removed perfectly easily." first both houses must agree by a bare majority (over 50%), then parliament is prorogued, new elections are held and the proposed amendment must then be carried by a 2/3rds Majority in both houses. A referendum of the people every 4 years is perfectly simple, you must have a completely different notion of what perfectly simple means.

Also @MoW - it seems every time I state that CMs are not democratic, someone says they are and gives an unrelated reason to base their argument (how well the monarchy performed in wartime for example). For the sake of arguement let me concede that CM is a better system. The only difference between us is, is CM democratic.

if we take MoW' s definition of democracy we can see a democratic deficit. Every citizen can not obtain the rank of King, theirs votes are not equal in the sense that a 2/3rd majority is required to defeat the status quo, the issue of monarchy is not bought before the people on a regular basis and in many countries such as the UK sections of the community eg Catholics are excluded from being king even if they are next in line. The uk is currently debating male primogeniture though I understand the Netherlands resolved this some time ago.

My contention remains that for all it's benefits CM is not democratic.

@Maniac,

Having a few votes in parliament is much easier than holding a referendum, which requires enormous organization country-wide and gives us a lot more votes to count.

I am principally against referenda based on my prior analysis of what a democracy is. There is excellent reason to require a 2/3rd majority for a constitutional change, because if we wouldn't have that, you'd see constitutional changes on a too regular basis, with one line of thought simply overruling another line of thought, both of which oscillating around a 50% support in parliament.

So I'm sticking with my line of argumentation, that CMs are intrinsically more democratic than republics.

:P

Just to be clear, I don't think CMs are more democratic in a systematic way. In fact, only a few monarchies around the world, even those based in constitution, are. The vast majorities are constitutionally anchored despots.

However, I do agree with Red that within the few western monarchies that actually work, monarchy is a very discussable and changeable thing. Not everybody can become King, true, but the majority of people currently feels that is fine. In fact, I would argue that the most influential thing making NL/DK/SV more democratic is in fact nit a monarchy, but the electoral systems in those countries which guarantee: one man, one vote, equal representation.

Trix was a great monarch because she knew her limits. Had she stepped out of line like her parents, I'm sure we'd be discussing a Dutch president now.

I could very well become a King. All I would have to do is register as a political party with a programme to change the constitution such that I would be King and my family would become the new royal family and I would find myself losing the elections and having gotten only one vote, because nobody thinks that that would be a good idea.

@Redhouse - so your argument now is CMs are more democratic because you could get yourself elected King. That must be one of the most convincing arguments for anything I have ever heard - ever. I'm now a convert.

Addressing your more serious points, I agree there are good reasons why a change should require a 2/3rds majority, but there isn't a good democratic reason why this should be so. It undermines the principle of equal votes for all.

Your point about having to count lots of votes in a referendum ignores the fact that the constitution calls for a 50% in both house, then an election (same number of voters as a referendum) and then a further vote in both houses. To contend that a referendum is more difficult is not credible. Even if it were more difficult as it is more democratic the difficulty should be secondary to the will of the people.

MoW - I agree with your points about most CMs and Trix may have been a great monarch - what we will never know of course is whether there was somebody who could do the job better. The fact that the highest offices in the land (in the UK) are not based on merit does cause disharmony in some quarters, although I accept that our Royal family are a uniting force generally.

"Not everybody can become King, true, but the majority of people currently feels that is fine" I'm sure that's true but I hear that many people were happy with Saddam Hussain - happiness (or unwillingness to change something) does not equate to a democratic mandate.

Monarchy is ridiculous. But when the monarch is totally powerless, it's a useful kind of ridiculousness that sure seems to work better than republics in maintaining stability and, with the exception of the monarch, democratic government. The United States is just about the only republic in the Americas which has never had an interruption of democratic, constitutional rule. Is old Lizzy Windsor the only reason Jamaica isn't an English-speaking Haiti? Probably not, but the stability a monarchy provides must play some role, and probably a significant one.

It's not ridiculous. Monarchs have a lot of time to learn about governing and teaching that to their children much like passing on a craft. They accumulate a lot of experience that they can use for decades and make long-lasting contacts with other nations. Not ridiculous at all. Old-fashioned perhaps.

Monarchy is ridiculous if there is no overseeing option (such as a parliament). Once it turns despotic, yeah, it's ridiculous. The good ones keep from doing so.

The idea that someone should be head of state simply because one of their parents was is ridiculous.

@Maniac Democratic mandate is not a black and white thing though. Neither PM Rutte nor PM Cameron have won a majority of the votes. However, in the coalition forming afterwards, they have garnered a measure of legitimacy in which they may claim public support. But they never won in a direct vote. Obviously Kings and Queens usually didnt even get a vote. But, it would certainly be possible. Get enough support to start or change a political party to include abolishment or change of the monarchy and you're in business red's point is thouh, there isnt a majority to support that. So there is a majority who feels that an explicit mandate by the majority is not necessary. Is that a mandate? Well, sort of.

And calling it ridiculous is only appropriate of you have a very strong paradigm of direct democracy. Personally, I think the district system in UK and US is a much more dangerous kind of democratic deficit.

I'm not saying constitutional monarchies don't work. They obviously do. But the idea that the the position of head of state ought to be inherited is absurd. The son of a head of state taking over for his dad makes just about as much sense as your doctor's son taking over after your doctor dies, and you have no option to go to someone else. Sure, it could be that the son is just as talented as the father and will serve you well, but it's not worth the risk. Again, monarchies do tend to work out alright, but don't tell me it's not a ridiculous and nonsensical system.

I dont think anyody in NL or DK or UK thinks that the head of state _ought_ to be an inhereted title. It's just such a non-issue that the majority prefer the status quo. Again, for NL, this has everything to do with the royals knowing exactly how to stay within the lines. If they overstep the boundaries (and I think our new king might at some point) we're back to the original Republic faster than you can say 'cognatic primogeniture'.

@MoW - I haven't said that monarchies are ridicules, I accepted for the sake of argument that hey can be better than some republics.

With regards to your point about the district system being less democratic than a PR system you may be right. I the UK we had a referendum recently about how our voting should be conducted, the fudge left us with a choice between a district first past the post (FPTP) system or alternative vote (AV) PR was not offered. FPTP won by a mile. If that is the system the people favoured then I'm ok with that, but think people will campaign for PR I the future although I can't see it being an issue for a number of years.

If we had a referendum on keeping the monarchy, I would of course accept the result, but saying that as no one has formed an anti-royalist party and therefore everyone must implicitly want the monarchy is not democracy.

We do actually have a republican party in the UK. They win seats but don't take them because , inter alia, they refuse to swear allegiance to the queen which is a pre-requisite for seating in the house of commons. So much for inclusion. The state is very good at keeping the status quo, dictators around the world often find excuses for delaying elections indefinitely.

Re: swearing allegiance to the queen.

I believe they do that in Holland too on the occasion of a change in Kings. But I don't believe this is interpretable the way you interpret it, that you implicitly or even explicitly support the monarchy as a system.

Rather, if I ever took a vow like that, I would interpret it as swearing allegiance to the King as long as he is King, in the sense that as long as there is an (admittedly tacit) majority supporting the King, then so will I, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't try to change the system.

In other words, allegiance to the King for me means allegiance to the person who is King at that moment, but not to the monarchic system. I believe that it is much the same as respecting the law, even if you believe a law should be changed, you should still respect it as long as it hasn't.

I swore an oath as civil servant, and it's not to the Queen, it's to the Constitution. Same for parliamentarians.

@Maniac, yes I followed the referendum in the UK closely, it was such a travesty how it was handled and how it turned out. And I was initially so enthusiastic about Clegg! I didnt realize he lacked so much spine. He could have learned from NL and DK, where the minority partner in government actually often wields the most power!

Actually, your example of tacit approval of the royal house because nobody has formed an anti-royalist party is right on target. But I would chalk that one down to the democratic deficit of the DS: there is only room for two and a half parties! (called the Law of Duverger in polisci). I would bet you my crown jewels that if the UK had a PR system, there would most definitely be a much stronger anti-royalist party. We have a few in NL, although they don't tout it a lot since, like I said, it's a non-issue for now.

Can I ask what you voted Maniac?

MoW, they also don't discuss it because it would scare their voters away! :P

Also, it's funny what you say about Clegg and learning from NL and DK, I thought the *exact* same thing when he joined the government :D

Yeah that too! :-P I'm a member, but don't particularly like that agenda point...

Clegg had so much disappointment during his term, student loans, EU deficit deals, referendum, anything George Osborne ever does... soooo many options to kick the political smithereens out of the Tories. Instead, he just was a good lapdg and played dead when ordered. *sigh*.

I wouldnt know who to vote now if I were in the UK. Labor even elected the wrong Milliband if you ask me.

@redhouse - the party that doesn't take it seats are Sinn Fein; the political wing of the IRA - to suggest that they might swear alliance to the queen and explain to their voters they that on did so on some sort of technicality and really they had their fingers crossed behind their back is absurd.

MoW - I preferred AV but is does have many disadvantages. I'll post my preferred system here when back on laptop.

What I think is absurd is making a void statement rather than conforming to a technicality and participating in a productive discussion, but that's a British problem, I'm not going into it too deep.

You do make me smile Redhouse. I won/t go into the whole history and bore you with a British problem, but Sinn Fein swearing allegence to the Crown would be like the leader of Hamas kissing Netanyahu's ring just so they can sit down with 600 other guys who oppose him and talk about anything but what the Hamas leader wants. It ain't going to happen.

PS - the electors of SinnFein are aware of their absentionist policies when they elect them

In your analogy Netanyahu would be Shimon Peres and I don't see the point of the ring.

Why, The One Ring of course.