Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic • Hacker News Board

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#31

Post by crocodiletears » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 6:34 AM UTC

ebanana wrote: post #30

chmod600 wrote: post #9

Sometimes I wonder if we generally have too high of expectations about how quickly good government can be established. Technology and media move very quickly, and it's easy to think "just git clone the laws and deploy" and you'll have the same results as whatever country you're emulating. But it doesn't happen that way. I'm not really making an argument here, just wondering out loud. I don't want this to be interpret…

ideologies battle, theres a weird russian book on this, its disguised as spiritual knowledge but it talks about trends or movements, old systems directly and indirectly protect the status quo, in order to change systems people have to be influenced in their everyday life, but it cannot be done by force because the old system and its allys will swing back and try to restablish equilibrium. the best idea doesn't always…

This sounds interesting, do you have the title?

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#32

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 6:38 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #24

vmception wrote: post #21

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…

do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and…

> Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI

No, the UK wasn't the only monarchy of a WWI belligerent to survive the war: On the allied side, Luxembourg, Siam/Thailand, and Japan survive to this day; Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Romania, Greece, survived WWI, and Hejaz and Nejd (the latter of which became the monarchy of Saudi Arabia) got monarchies created in WWI. On the central powers side, Bulgaria’s monarchy survived the war.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#33

Post by MarcScott » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:04 AM UTC

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses.

This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners.

If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#34

Post by emodendroket » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:04 AM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #4

Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.

I listened to someone saying that in Canada it would just be a ton of legal headaches to try and excise the monarchy and most people just don't see the point when they don't expect much would change in practice. I imagine other places would have this issue.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#35

Post by trhway » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:06 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #32

trhway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and…

> Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI No, the UK wasn't the only monarchy of a WWI belligerent to survive the war: On the allied side, Luxembourg, Siam/Thailand, and Japan survive to this day; Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Romania, Greece, survived WWI, and Hejaz and Nejd (the latter of which became the monarchy of Saudi Arabia) got monarchies created in WWI. On the central powers side, Bulgaria’s monarchy surv…

you're right. I kind of meant the big ones, emperors/empires. The Ottoman Empire is also in the list of the fallen ones.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#36

Post by PostOnce » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:12 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#37

Post by shasheene » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:18 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population.

This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York.

This arguably undemocratic over-representation gives the smaller states much more power in certain areas, but this is by design. It provides incentive to keep large rural states part of a single nation. Compromises like that makes a country as a whole stronger.

Another interesting aspect is US Senate terms are long (6 years), with a third of members up for reelection happening every TWO years. Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. The net effect is it requires several election cycles to have a big impact on the passage of laws. This contributes to stability.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#38

Post by MarcScott » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:19 AM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #36

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.

But in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#39

Post by myrion » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:21 AM UTC

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Having two houses of parliament can be used to balance out regional representation with population-based representation. That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas.

That can be overdone, like in the US, where rural areas can completely overshadow the population centers but the idea isn't terrible.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#40

Post by throwaway2048 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 7:23 AM UTC

shasheene wrote: post #37

MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-repres…

unfortunately such situations often degenerate into a tyranny of the minority, the UK house of lords as a mechanism for the aristocracy to keep holding power with a veneer of democracy is a good example, which is why it has steadily lost political legitimacy through time.

I don't think there is good evidence that the senate has in fact made the USA stronger as a nation, the only thing I have ever seen on the topic is how it theoretically might be the case, but history has shown it to long be a blocker of reforms that end up happening anyways, with a great deal more political bullshit than necessary.