Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

constitutionnet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

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

#71

Post by rsj_hn »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #70
rnmwfQ3f wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that absurd?

We say we're against racism, sexism, and other isms that involve people not being equal because of a condition of their birth. Well all of us have less wealth and privilege than the royalty by virtue of our birth and it's somehow enshrined in law.

> We say we're against racism, sexism, and other isms that involve people not being equal because of a condition of their birth.

No, no, no. Being against racism means you give people a fair chance irrespective of their race. It does not mean you want everyone to be equal due to the conditions of their birth.

In fact, we do not want people to be equal at all, as we need specialization, and people are highly unequal, oftentimes because of the conditions of their birth.

For example, it may well be that the condition of Sam's birth makes him a better diamond cutter than the condition of Joe's birth -- Sam might have been born into a family of diamond cutters who trained him when he was a baby, slicing apples in a certain way and whittling on wood all the time. Or maybe there is a diamond cutter gene that Sam has, which gives him superior diamond cutting skills.

We'd still hire Sam because he was a better diamond cutter. What we wouldn't do, is refuse to hire Sam solely because he was Swedish, and we don't think Swedes can be good diamond cutters, and so we wont even give Sam a chance to prove he really is better Joe.

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

#72

Post by dane-pgp »

JamisonM wrote: post #23
dane-pgp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…

If you gave an elected official outside of parliament the power to veto legislation they would have a lot more power than the governor general now wields in practice. While royal assent is technically a power held by a GG they don't actually wield it in practice, once that power were given to an elected office then the elections would become about the use of that power and the role would be very different.

I would say that if someone has a power and chooses to never use it, that is itself a political act (one which is biased towards the governing party).

Giving this power a democratic mandate and legitimacy may make the role "very different", but that doesn't mean the constitutional dynamic would be worse.

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

#73

Post by dane-pgp »

ggm wrote: post #22
dane-pgp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…

This is something I just fundamentally disagree with. There are far more examples of good democracies with indirectly elected presidents and far more examples of directly elected politicised presidents, than would let me be optimistic for your model. Plus, I think you misunderstand the role of a symbolic president, they are not meant to be the arbiter of fit laws passed in vote by parliament.

I wasn't arguing in favour of a purely symbolic president, but I should have made that clear at the start of my reply, I apologise.

The kind of role I was imagining is one that could have a legal continuity with the GG role (and could keep the same name), but their mandate would come from the people, and not the monarch.

My point was, by limiting their power, they would be very different from a US style executive president, and ideally (if the government of the day was doing its job properly) this president would indeed find themselves only performing symbolic/ceremonial functions.

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

#74

Post by JamisonM »

dane-pgp wrote: post #72
JamisonM wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you gave an elected official outside of parliament the power to veto legislation they would have a lot more power than the governor general now wields in practice. While royal assent is technically a power held by a GG they don't actually wield it in practice, once that power were given to an elected office then the elections would become about the use of that power and the role would be very different.

I would say that if someone has a power and chooses to never use it, that is itself a political act (one which is biased towards the governing party). Giving this power a democratic mandate and legitimacy may make the role "very different", but that doesn't mean the constitutional dynamic would be worse.

The non-use of the powers of the GG is an essential part of the structure of the governments of Canada & Australia and of course it is a political act, the bias towards the parliament is intentional, the parliament is supreme.

I feel it is self-evident that the new dynamic created by an elected GG would be worse. If you have a person at the head of government whose only job is to say no to things and resolve constitutional disputes they are left with only those tools to differentiate themselves from other candidates.

That creates an incentive system for this person to veto and manufacture constitutional strife in order to create a profile for themselves. It is a role built specifically for political arsonists.

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

#75

Post by dane-pgp »

JamisonM wrote: post #74
dane-pgp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that if someone has a power and chooses to never use it, that is itself a political act (one which is biased towards the governing party). Giving this power a democratic mandate and legitimacy may make the role "very different", but that doesn't mean the constitutional dynamic would be worse.

The non-use of the powers of the GG is an essential part of the structure of the governments of Canada & Australia and of course it is a political act, the bias towards the parliament is intentional, the parliament is supreme. I feel it is self-evident that the new dynamic created by an elected GG would be worse. If you have a person at the head of government whose only job is to say no to things and resolve constitu…

That seems to rely on the school of thought that "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Perhaps you're right, and someone could be skilful enough as president to create crises, despite their limited power, and also trick people into thinking that the crises are someone else's fault, and still somehow able to take the credit when they solve these crises.

On the other hand, I think such a belief requires one to hold quite a low view of the public and democratic processes generally. You might say that experience supports such a low view, but I would counter that it applies equally, or more so, to the status quo, where all power is held by the prime minister, who has every incentive (and much greater ability) to create these crises (especially just before elections) and tell the country that they have to unite behind the government to survive.

The fact that such a strategy is already possible under the current system just confirms to me that there needs to be different roles, held by different people, with different incentives, to stop these extreme edge cases. I think that what is self-evident is that concentration of power leads to abuse, while diffusion of power leads to moderation and representativeness.

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

#76

Post by Mikeb85 »

rsj_hn wrote: post #71
Mikeb85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We say we're against racism, sexism, and other isms that involve people not being equal because of a condition of their birth. Well all of us have less wealth and privilege than the royalty by virtue of our birth and it's somehow enshrined in law.

> We say we're against racism, sexism, and other isms that involve people not being equal because of a condition of their birth. No, no, no. Being against racism means you give people a fair chance irrespective of their race . It does not mean you want everyone to be equal due to the conditions of their birth. In fact, we do not want people to be equal at all, as we need specialization, and people are highly unequal,…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...

The first sentence of the first article:

> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

You're complicating things. I believe in republicanism (ie. not monarchy), freedom, equality, etc... The existence of a monarchy means we aren't born with equal rights and dignity.

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

#77

Post by Mikeb85 »

throw0101a wrote: post #63
Mikeb85 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (Canadian) would personally vote to be a republic. Symbolic or not, I think it's absurd that hereditary rule exists in any form in the current day and age.

As another Canadian, I wouldn't be against becoming a republic, as long as the new system can guarantee things working as well as the current one. We're currently in the top ten of The Economist 's Democracy Index: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country And 8 out of the top 10 are also constitution monarchies. Plenty of symbolic-president republics in the top twenty though. Whatever replacement sy…

A UK-based newspaper that caters to the bourgeois/aristocrat segment of society (since 1843) proclaims the UK's system to be the best, and relegates a bunch of republics to secondary status...

Forgive me if I don't trust their judgement. I'd take any western European republic's system over ours in a heartbeat.

Also, keep in mind that in Canada, our government is currently formed by the party that got the second most votes and has had so many scandals that half the leadership should be in jail, not in power (not that I'd be particularly thrilled about the Cons in power either, they're at least as inept albeit probably slightly less corrupt). We also have an appointed senate, which is basically just political patronage. Same goes for the GG spot. We have entire provinces run by oligarchs. And so on. If we're considered a 'full democracy' then I don't trust whoever made that proclamation.

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

#78

Post by skissane »

hash872 wrote: post #69
skissane wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What country do you live in? By definition, in a parliamentary system, the executive is de facto subordinated to the legislature, even if they may be theoretically considered equal. If the executive and legislature are equal in your country, not just in theory but also in practice, then you do not live in a true parliamentary system, even if some might call your system “parliamentary”. You mention France-as I said, F…

I think the argument is that a powerful Prime Minister is not really subordinated to parliament- that Merkel does not, in practice, really answer to the party, but instead the party answers to her. I am not personally making that argument, but I think that's the response- that there's a difference between how parliamentary systems work in theory, versus in practice

> I think the argument is that a powerful Prime Minister is not really subordinated to parliament- that Merkel does not, in practice, really answer to the party, but instead the party answers to her.

Merkel always governed as leader of a coalition - mostly a “grand coalition” with the traditional main left-wing party (the SPD), although her second cabinet was a coalition with the classically liberal FDP instead. So, forget about answering to her own party - if at any point her coalition partners had felt it was in their political self-interest to do so, they could have collapsed the government.

I think this argument is really drawing on the fact that Merkel was genuinely popular with the German electorate, which protected her against any desire by her party or coalition partners to push her out - they knew the electorate would punish them if they tried.

But, true power does not depend on popularity, it continues even when people don’t like you any more. A US President may become despised by both Congress and the voters, yet to remove them before their term is up, Congress needs to allege actual wrongdoing (as opposed to just “we don’t like you any more”) and needs a super-majority. By contrast, an unpopular German Chancellor can be removed by their party and/or coalition partners, before the end of the electoral term, without needing any parliamentary super-majority or specific allegations of wrongdoing. In that sense the German Chancellor is subject to the Bundestag, to a much greater extent than any US President is subject to Congress.

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

#79

Post by JamisonM »

dane-pgp wrote: post #75
JamisonM wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The non-use of the powers of the GG is an essential part of the structure of the governments of Canada & Australia and of course it is a political act, the bias towards the parliament is intentional, the parliament is supreme. I feel it is self-evident that the new dynamic created by an elected GG would be worse. If you have a person at the head of government whose only job is to say no to things and resolve constitu…

That seems to rely on the school of thought that "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Perhaps you're right, and someone could be skilful enough as president to create crises, despite their limited power, and also trick people into thinking that the crises are someone else's fault, and still somehow able to take the credit when they solve these crises. On the other hand, I think such a belief requires one to hold…

I think this is a bit of a mischaracterization of my position but I do think you are arguing in good faith. I don't have a low view of the public or democratic processes, I have a high view of it!

I look at the American political system and imagine a version of it where the president was the president but did not in fact operate the executive, that person's only job was the power of the veto - it seems like a nightmare.

The idea that a PM has some incentive to manufacture a crisis is true I suppose, but that is a very high-risk strategy. Real-world experience indicates that popular support is a product of good economic conditions and the rare exceptions to these instances (i.e. GWB post-9/11) stand out because they are very extraordinary. (And usually end very badly!) Every political body at every level has the power to manufacture a crisis and benefit from it, but that isn't very effective because the electorate understands that they have the power to address the crisis, or prevent it in the first place so the existence of that dynamic doesn't prove much of anything from my perspective.

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

#80

Post by EarlKing »

notfromhere wrote: post #68
EarlKing wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes... that the rural proletariat is represented in government rather than yielding all decisions to the urban bourgeoisie. The American form of government was designed specifically to ensure a balance of interests rather than allowing one class to run roughshod over the other. It's a design feature, and a good one at that, no matter…

It’s not. Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do. Rural doesn’t mean agriculture because that is a tiny fraction of the workforce. Poor rural voters work the same jobs that poor urban voters do (largely service or manufacturing). The urban “bourgeoisie” isn’t big enough to dictate anything as a voting bloc, but the “equal representation of classes” angle is a great way to justify su…

> Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do.

Really? I don't know many people working in the tech industry or high finance that live in suburbia or out in the country... DO YOU?

This is just an excuse to disenfranchise people who refuse to vote your way, and it's disgusting.

Post reply on HN