Charles III - a king?

          Worldwide, there are a number of monarchies which take different forms. There are many constitutional monarchies, of varying degrees. Of many of them, although not every single constitutional monarchy, the head of state in the UK is also the mainly symbolic head of state of the following: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. 
            As such, Charles III is head of state of both nations of which I am a citizen. It remains to be seen whether this is a blessing or a curse.

Other monarchies
                There are still a number of absolute monarchies. They are mainly in the Middle East. While one of them is actually in  Europe, Vatican City is ruled exclusively by the Pope. As the Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals, the Vatican City could be classified as a light absolute monarchy. This contradicts the absolute monarchies of the Middle East itself which are not hereditary in the traditional sense, they are also almost entirely repressive theologies which use the Quran as a pretext to severely repress any opposition and are close to treating women like non-people. 

                There are also unofficial monarchies. While there is not a head of state entitled King, there are a few undemocratic nations where the individual at the top behaves like an absolute monarch. While the People's Republic of China has a political system, it is mainly a showcase. Since China last had an emperor over a century ago, the character at the top has behaved like one. Long ago, Xi Jinping noticed how many were taken in by the personality cult which Mao Zedong engineered. He is now attempting to recreate the same around himself, along with a few elements of his disastrous policies. His chances of complete success are slim because the population of the PRC are not as stupid as he likes to believe. Still, he relies on the long established machinery of state repression to stay in power for longer most want him, including party members and even the politburo. 
                The worst monarchy-esque nation by a very wide margin is North Korea, with the cruelly ironic official title Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Since it was officially founded in 1948 and especially when the Korean War transformed into the world's longest ceasefire on July 27, 1953 it has been iron fistedly ruled by the same family. Functionally a hereditary monarchy, with the Juche ideology almost part of the national character, it is the worst nation on earth. 
 
The future of Charles III and the institution as a whole
                Such are the features of monarchies in that they can vary from preserving tradition to being adapted as a front for the sake of convenience to remain in power and an excuse to treat the general population appallingly. This does not mean that constitutional monarchies have no moral license to exist despite the claims of many republicans/abolitionists/antimonarchists/libertarians. 
                Preservation arguments by monarchists amount to keeping tradition for the sake of keeping tradition. Insisting that this is who we are is potentially accompanied by claiming that opponents have misplaced loyalties to something that is other and aren't really British. Such labelling is completely pointless. The behaviour and fairly modern outlook of the late Queen Elizabeth II went much of the way towards settling the debate. As long as Charles III is really his mother's son and does not lapse into some of his previous misdeeds in which he took after his father excessively, his reign has the potential for a modest amount of success as long as the melodrama with Prince Harry settles down. 
                His main, or rather only mission is to prove that a monarchy in Britain is still relevant and not obsolete. Therefore, from now on and especially after the coronation on May 6, denying sceptics the excuse that his behaviour proves their point(s), he has to demonstrate why the monarchy in Britain shouldn't be abolished. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Canada's lost decade (and lost electorate)

Image
Once upon a time...                                                                          Canada had  a prime minister who was an economic technocrat. The election in 2015 was partially a referendum on the neo-liberal economics and social policies of Stephen Harper. The way in which these had become slightly divisive were exploited by Justin Trudeau, bringing on what one of Harper's cabinet minister's, Peter MacKay, described as a "sea change". This included Joe Oliver becoming the first finance minister to lose his seat for over 20 years. In a speech to supporters, Harper took ownership, "the disappointment you feel is my responsibility and mine alone."          A sharp contrast was the recently victorious Justin Trudeau, defeating the N...
Read more

A genuine alternative or predecessor-in-disguise?

Image
        Since the 14th of March, Canada has had a prime minister who called an election on April 28th. Because Mark Carney does not have a seat in parliament, it is appropriate for the election to be as soon as possible. 2 other prime ministers were always 'seatless', most recently John Turner who was prime minister right after Pierre Trudeau for a grand total of 79 days. Furthermore, in 1896, Charles Tupper was in office for a mere 69 days.         Even if he becomes 'seated', not winning enough seats in total would enable Mark Carney to surpass Tupper at a record 46 days. Therefore, who exactly is/was the current prime minister?  Mark Joseph Carney        Born in 1965 in Fort Smith, NWT with 1 brother and 1 sister, he grew up in Edmonton. In his teens, his father was the Liberal candidate in the 1980 federal election, finishing runner-up (2nd) in Edmonton South. He became a Harvard graduate 8 years later, going...
Read more

Indefinite electioneering in Canada

Image
Arrival and continued presence             Whereas in Canada better is always possible, the sentiment of the population does not reflect that sentiment voiced by Justin Trudeau in 2015. The tagline "real change" and (excessively) bold promises duped a sufficient proportion of the electorate to elevate the Liberal Party from third place to a large parliamentary majority. The prime minister himself attributed that win to an upbeat campaign and an optimistic message. Such marketing encouraged tactical voting away from the previous opinion poll front-runners, the NDP.             Infrastructure spending was one promise, for which he promised to run three consecutive deficits in order to fund it. Deficit spending has been the only promise that has been kept, and it has even been exceeded, to the extent that the national debt has doubled since 2015. Just the interest charges on the national debt cost taxpayers more tha...
Read more