+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Otto von Hapsburg Marches on Mogadishu (Monarchy vs. Other Gov'ts)

  1. #1
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Otto von Hapsburg Marches on Mogadishu (Monarchy vs. Other Gov'ts)

    Fed up with the obstructionism facing his family in his native Austria. Otto von Hapsburg, the current heir to the Hapsburg* titles and lands, has decided that instead of continuing to work towards being allowed in his own person (or that of his son) to take part in national politics, he shall make a naked grab for power. However, instead of trying to grab a throne in Vienna, he has been following the human tragedies occurring daily within the failed state of Somalia.

    Here, he reasons, is a situation where someone who intends to restore the rule of law, supported by military might from a mixed force of personal retainers and mercenaries supplied by several different sources (The Russians, and Chinese, both have pledged support and military supplies in the hope that establishing any kind of order within Somalia will serve to reduce piracy.) can prove that a monarchy by so capable a family as the Hapsburgs would be a measurable good for the people of his new nation.



    Obviously this is a ridiculous scenario. And ignores, on many levels, some obvious problems. (Just for an example: How to avoid the mistakes of Colonialism?) But the general idea is one that I think bears discussion:

    Just when does a monarchy become preferable to mass-based forms of governance, if ever? I'll admit to cheating, because, it's hard to consider what's going on in Somalia to actually resemble a government. Compared to outright anarchy, I'd love to see a monarchy established.

    For that matter, Juan Carlos of Spain is an interesting example. I'm no expert in Spanish history, but my impression is that it was his position as King that allowed the nation to avoid civil war after Franco's rule. While the Spanish king doesn't rule, his position as head of state did allow for a much smoother transfer of power than I would have believed possible, otherwise.




    *Yes, I know he's passed his claim in favor of his son. Work with me here - I'm just making a ridiculous hypothetical. The undead Hapsburg is just more fun to play with.

  2. #2
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    We have both a monarchy and a parliament in the UK, sometimes, I wish we just had the monarchy.

    Having a monarchy is great when things have broken down and everyone looks to someone to take overall control and responsibility for the area. Especially if it is to help reassert a semblance of democracy. Then again, that is all a monarchy in essence is. The biggest, baddest, ruling tribe who can maintain law and order in the area the size of a country.

    Sometimes, it is not so much the benefit to the country that should be considered, but also the benefits to any surrounding countries, which have an unstable land next to them. Chances are they would prefer someone to take control instead of leaving it to warring tribes.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  3. #3
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Better the UN move in a take control of the country and work to build the foundation of a strong democracy.

  4. #4
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Better the UN move in a take control of the country and work to build the foundation of a strong democracy.
    Like in Kossovo?


    IMNSHO, a prerequisite for a stable democracy is an educated populace, and one that is prepared to expect peaceful transfers of power. When out and out tribalism, or feuding clans, are the reality of what people have lived with, I am skeptical of the likelihood of a stable democratic government being established, vice a kleptocracy, or worse.

    Which means, for many of the places where I'd consider a Monarchy to be easier to foster, a generational commitment. Which I don't see the UN being able to sustain.

  5. #5
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Do the majority of Somalis want King Otto or is this going to be a mission to conquer them? If the majority welcome him with open arms and want to have a monarchy, then I think it's preferable to anarchy.

    Forcing a monarchy onto the people is a different matter, though. Forcing people to accept a form of government is wrong, regardless of what type of government you're trying to force. If you go into a country with the plan to instill a particular type of government, regardless of how the people feel about it, you are a tyrant.

    Quote Originally posted by Loki
    IMNSHO, a prerequisite for a stable democracy is an educated populace, and one that is prepared to expect peaceful transfers of power. When out and out tribalism, or feuding clans, are the reality of what people have lived with, I am skeptical of the likelihood of a stable democratic government being established, vice a kleptocracy, or worse.

    Which means, for many of the places where I'd consider a Monarchy to be easier to foster, a generational commitment. Which I don't see the UN being able to sustain.
    Very well put.

  6. #6
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Ideally we could loan the United Nations the 1st or 2nd Infantry Division and a Marine Regimental Combat Team. Their task would be to roll through Somalia and kill anything holding a weapon. Stack the bodies high. Afterwards we'll hand it over to whichever regional power could best use it. Done.

  7. #7
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Better the UN move in a take control of the country and work to build the foundation of a strong democracy.
    Yeah, that really worked in Rwanda didn't it.

    I believe the USA were busy debating what exactly the term genocide meant and prevented the UN from doing anything. The cynic in me thinks that if there had been oil there, the USA would have been in as fast as they could..
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  8. #8
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I concur CIAS, in fact I find it dismal that the US never stepped in. Honestly the UN is nearly useless for these purposes. But a monarch is no solution either.

  9. #9
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Forcing a monarchy onto the people is a different matter, though. Forcing people to accept a form of government is wrong, regardless of what type of government you're trying to force. If you go into a country with the plan to instill a particular type of government, regardless of how the people feel about it, you are a tyrant.
    I've got two answers to this.

    In theory, I think you're right.

    In practice, I can see the benefits of supporting a temporary tyranny, to establish some peace. Then, after achieving some kind of improved domestic stability, having a referendum to endorse, or reject, the idea of the monarchy.

    One of the problems in Somalia is that AFAIR there are four different official governments of Somalia - all of which claim legitimacy, and majority endorsement, while having minimal control in the country. At least one, the government supplying the UN delegation, isn't even based in Somalia, at this point.

    In short, it would be impossible to determine in advance whether there were any support for any kind of intervention.





    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    But a monarch is no solution either.
    Here is where we differ. I believe that establishing a monarch, especially one who will foster the rule of law, is going to be a more effective way to transform an anarchy into a representative government. I expect that it would be a generational process, but probably more effective than trying to impose a democracy upon Afghanistan, for example, has been.

    Call it the lesson I took from my study of Russian history: The absolute worst thing in the world in anarchy. A less than ideal government that works: that provides for domestic security; that builds roads and schools; that establishes the rule of law for resolving internal disagreements. That is going to be better than any ideal model of government that doesn't work.

    Anarchy is the killer, not monarchy. End the anarchy. Establish the rule of law. Then work for a process-based transformation to a constitutional monarchy. Trying to create a democracy ex nihilo without the traditions and expectations I mentioned upthread seems to me to be doomed to failure.

  10. #10
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Why can't a monarchy or a tyranny be a solution to this problem. Why do we have to be caught up in trying to establish a demeocracy each and every time. Most people want to be happy to live their lives as freely as possible with as little interference as possible in a safe and secure environment which is beneficial for them and their families.

    I can't think of an Old World country that started off with a democracy first and not an absolute ruler. Surely starting with a single ruler and progressing to a democracy would be the best way to do it.

    What is so beneficial about a democracy that a benevolent despot couldn't manage?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97

    Default

    What about the non-Western countries, such as Asia? The majority of the countries there, especially the successful ones, are democracy in name only. Most are oligarchies. The only one that's particularly close to a democracy is the constitutional monarchy in Thailand. It's a weird democracy, but it works for the most part and is becoming more and more stable. The only big trial there will be when the current monarch passes and if the deposed scumbag PM Thaksin is still around.

  12. #12
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler View post
    What about the non-Western countries, such as Asia? The majority of the countries there, especially the successful ones, are democracy in name only. Most are oligarchies. The only one that's particularly close to a democracy is the constitutional monarchy in Thailand.
    Welcome to the boards! I hope you'll stick around.


    I will disagree with your count. I'd count both South Korea and Japan as being at least as democratic as Thailand. Certainly both nations have their hereditary elites, usually based upon family wealth. (More so in South Korea than in Japan, but very present and influential.) But I do believe that both nations do have a real voice in their politics for the commons.

    Of course one of those two nations is also a constitutional monarchy - and was allowed to remain such because it was feared just how the nation of Japan would splinter without the unifying focus of the Imperial family.

  13. #13
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    This might be simple ignorance but I thought India was a Democracy.

  14. #14
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Another good point, Jim. Though I believe you can argue that India is also heavily influenced by it's own oligarchical class.

  15. #15
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97

    Default

    I just may! I miss having conversations like this and my brain is going to rot.

    Sorry, I was thinking more about South East Asia; Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc but South Korea and India are definitely oligarchies with the trappings of democracy. The democratic portions of the Indian system just make it easier to administer the various regions while a certain group is in charge of the overall country.

    South Korea is headed by a definite oligarchy, but they like staying in power so are receptive to certain demands of the common people.

    Japan is in a separate category all on their own. I don't count them as having anywhere close to an influential monarchy, even less influential than the British monarchy. They've also got less of a wealth gap and higher literacy/education rates than other Asian countries.

    Thailand's democracy is very, very strange. It has the basic forms of democratic checks and balances, but the military also acts as a separate check on the civilian government when the civilian government has perverted the whole concept of government. Unfortunately, this will only be effective for a short period of time before the military misuses that power. Power does corrupt, but adding a fourth arm into the checks and balances is interesting.

    I guess my point is that countries have to have an solid educational/middle class for democracy to be truly effective and actually work in the best interests of the country. Until that plateau is reached, a bureaucratic elite (possibly headed by a monarch) holds up the country. Look at the way the US is now. We've thrown away the concept that our politicians need to be better than us and just want "everyman" politicians, while ridiculing higher education in general. We rely on the media to provide us with distilled information, but what happens when the politicians own the media?

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts