Oman’s Sultan Qaboos, in power since 1970, dies at 79; Haitham bin Tariq becomes Sultan of Oman

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Irreleveant.
What the political map was back then doesn't matter. Republics in the 20th century were bloody and violent. No amount of deflection is going to change that.

ask the Russians how that worked

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

ask the Russians how that worked

You mean the Russians under the Soviet Union? The same Soviet Union where people starved to death? The same Soviet Union that expanded far more than Imperial Russia?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

You don't say. Also most war throughout human history weren't religious.


Not yet. However what has this gotta do with republics bloodiness and tyranny?


I live in one. The UK. Keep thinking republics rule better than monarchies. China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya certainly don't have any problems.

You live in a fake ass monarchy and are you really gong to conflate what I meant by religiously.


But now that I know you’re indoctrinated into the practice of supporting cac royalty, we’re done here. Enjoy your brexit

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

You live in a fake ass monarchy and are you really gong to conflate what I meant by religiously.


But now that I know you’re indoctrinated into the practice of supporting cac royalty, we’re done here. Enjoy your brexit

What's fake about the UK? I'm not conflating anything you said.

Such a shame that you can't follow basic arguments. The American education system is truly a pile of shyt of epic proportions. No wonder the US is failing. Good luck with Trump.

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

@Mhofu i can repsond to the rest of what you wrote later but i definitely dont think morocco is the best run country in North Africa. post-revolutionary Tunisia has by far the most transparency and least corruption. Of course they have significant economic problems to deal with like all Arab states but compared to the other North African countries Tunisia is the best off right now

 

[01King]

Hopefully now Oman can turn towards democracy. If monarchies were good, then the people who installed this puppet would have them.

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

@Mhofu i can repsond to the rest of what you wrote later but i definitely dont think morocco is the best run country in North Africa. post-revolutionary Tunisia has by far the most transparency and least corruption. Of course they have significant economic problems to deal with like all Arab states but compared to the other North African countries Tunisia is the best off right now

I look forward to what you have to say. You seem to be smart and reasonable unlike the arse hats that can't make coherent argument or have no idea of basic history (especially 20th century history).

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

Because it's comical to claim that monarch is held to a higher standard and has less of a safety net than a public official.

It's true. The 20th century republics have shown this.

When the ruling family fukks up over a period of half a century or more and people finally rise up, monarch doesn't need to run anywhere because he will simply cut off the internet, shut down free press, jail reporters and murder protesters

You do realise this happens in republics as well right. Let's look at the republics that restrict the internet, press, jail reporters and murder protesters:
China
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkey
Belarus
Gaddafi's Libya
DRC
Cuba
Burma
Brazil
Egypt
Turkmenistan
Sudan
Russia

Those are for starters. Yet "bub buh buh monarchy bad, republic good."

As of 2019 the top 10 countries that rank on press freedom, 7 of them are monarchies in the bottom 10 only one is a monarchy:
According to this site

Also Constitutional Monarchs (the ones that have little power) exist.

And if you're lucky enough to oust that monarch it will be due to a coup by another family member that has foreign government backing or due to military junta rolling in with tanks and taking over.

Isn't it ironic that when a republic replaces a monarchy, it always gets progressively worse. The republic becomes more corrupt, tyrannical and bloodthirsty than the monarchy.

 

[nyknick]

It's true. The 20th century republics have shown this.


You do realise this happens in republics as well right. Let's look at the republics that restrict the internet, press, jail reporters and murder protesters:
China
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkey
Belarus
Gaddafi's Libya
DRC
Cuba
Burma
Brazil
Egypt
Turkmenistan
Sudan
Russia

Those are for starters. Yet "bub buh buh monarchy bad, republic good."

As of 2019 the top 10 countries that rank on press freedom, 7 of them are monarchies in the bottom 10 only one is a monarchy:
According to this site

Also Constitutional Monarchs (the ones that have little power) exist.


Isn't it ironic that when a republic replaces a monarchy, it always gets progressively worse. The republic becomes more corrupt, tyrannical and bloodthirsty than the monarchy.

Really breh

This argument started off because you were in here eulogizing an absolute monarch and pining for more monarchies.

Then you turn around and cite UK, Sweden and Japan as your examples of monarchies when you know that Oman and other absolute monarchies have a lot more in common with North Korea, Libya, Syria than countries with figurehead monarchs.

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

Really breh

This argument started off because you were in here eulogizing an absolute monarch and pining for more monarchies.

Then you turn around and cite UK, Sweden and Japan as your examples of monarchies when you know that Oman and other absolute monarchies have a lot more in common with North Korea, Libya, Syria than countries with figurehead monarchs.

So what? A monarchy is still a monarchy. The problem is that you don't like the argument because it undermines your theory and worldview. I'm sorry that your worldview is built around the crappy American education system. However, we can't deny the facts just because you don't like them.
I mentioned republics that have undermined the liberty of their people to show that your premise of monarchies restrict liberties and freedoms is utter bunk.

I'll give you that absolute monarchies have more in common with republics like Syria, North Korea, China, Libya, Cuba etc in terms of the power they wield. However that's where it ends. You'll be hard pressed to find one monarchy outside the UK (during its empire days) that caused a famine like the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.

 

[nyknick]

So what? A monarchy is still a monarchy. The problem is that you don't like the argument because it undermines your theory and worldview. I'm sorry that your worldview is built around the crappy American education system. However, we can't deny the facts just because you don't like them.
I mentioned republics that have undermined the liberty of their people to show that your premise of monarchies restrict liberties and freedoms is utter bunk.

I'll give you that absolute monarchies have more in common with republics like Syria, North Korea, China, Libya, Cuba etc in terms of the power they wield. However that's where it ends. You'll be hard pressed to find one monarchy outside the UK (during its empire days) that caused a famine like the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.

One is an absolute authority with unrestricted power, not limited by laws or constitution while the other one is just a ceremonial role without any power. So monarchy is not a monarchy.

These republics you list usually descend into authoritarian rule and commit atrocities because they want to consolidate power into their own hands and ultimately pass it on to their families. Basically becoming hereditary monarchies. Al-Assads, Kims, Gadaffis etc.


How would a ceremonial figurehead in constitutional monarchy prevent republic from commiting atrocities and turning into an authoritarian state?

How would a country without a history and descendants of absolute monarchy go about becoming constitutional monarchy today?

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

One is an absolute authority with unrestricted power, not limited by laws or constitution while the other one is just a ceremonial role without any power. So monarchy is not a monarchy.

WTF does that last sentence mean? A country is either a monarchy or republic. That's it.

These republics you list usually descend into authoritarian rule and commit atrocities because they want to consolidate power into their own hands and ultimately pass it on to their families. Basically becoming hereditary monarchies. Al-Assads, Kims, Gadaffis etc.

Let me break this down:
1. You've proven my argument about republics are more likely to commit atrocities. So much for republics safeguarding their people's freedoms and liberties.
2. As for the second part of consolidating power for their families. That's not totally true. Sure the examples you gave are correct (with the Kim's of North Korea being quite a bit different) but plenty of republics didn't do that:
Ayatollahs of Iran
Soviet Union
Taliban
The Military Junta of Burma
Hitler
Salazar
Commie China
Pol Pot of Cambodia
Commie Laos
Sudan

How would a ceremonial figurehead in constitutional monarchy prevent republic from commiting atrocities and turning into an authoritarian state?

Simply being on the top spot. A basic look at 19th and 20th century history shows that when a monarchy becomes a republic, that new republic becomes a lot worse in a space of 35 years.
Want examples?
Imperial Russia to Soviet Union
Qing China to the Republic of China then PR of China
Libyan Kingdom to Gaddafi's Libya
Kingdom of Cambodia to Pol Pot's Cambodia
Pahlavi Shah of Iran to the Ayatollahs
The German Empire under the Hohenzollern dynasty to Nazi Germany
Portuguese Kingdom to António de Oliveira Salazar

Btw there's more

Even when we take the latest example, Nepal. It turned into a republic in 2007 (i think) and things have steadily become worse for the country. So much so that they now have a Communist majority in the government. Do I need to spell out how bad that is?

Given what I've just wrote and shown. Do you really think that Oman becoming a republic would be a good idea? Great for their people?

The simple truth is nepotism is part of human nature. In a Monarchy, usually only one family is the problem. In a modern republic, the political party/ies and their family member are the problem.

How would a country without a history and descendants of absolute monarchy go about becoming constitutional monarchy today?

"A journey of a thousand miles start with a single step." Every thing has to start from somewhere. The Pahlavi dynasty of the Iran were nothing more than villagers. The Sauds were a bunch of goat herdeing bedouins. In time if the monarch and his family does well then he'll be accepted.

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

You kinda proved my argument with the bottom sentence. No matter how you slice it. Look at the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, once a monarchy becomes a republic, the country becomes worse via violence, corruption, dictatorial mess etc. Personally Yemen should've remained split. After a while the monarchy part would've been a lot better off.

my point wasnt to highlight that corruption was worse in the Yemeni Republic, it was to emphasize that while there was more corruption the state also provided MORE (still not a lot or the appropriate amount) for its people. in a very poor country like Yemen this might not seem significant but it needs to be emphasized how completely detached the Imamate was from improving peoples lives at the start of the Twentieth Century. I am Zaydi myself but this was clearly a case where the country either needed a completely new Imamate with a distinct political structure or a new form of government (which is what happened). And while i think that North and South Yemen were more appropriate as different states given their unique political histories it should be noted that North Yemen's monarchy ended and the Republic began decades before the unification.

]I partially agree but here's where it raises an important question. If a republic is acting like a monarchy in terms of pasing the power and title to their children, whats the point of republics in the first place?
Also I'd be careful comparing Saddam and Assad to the monarchs of the Middle East. As much as I despise most Middle Eastern monarchs (except Oman's R.I.P. and Jordan's) they aren't as bad as Assad or Saddam. Saddam has invaded Kuwait and Iran. Assad saw fit start a civil war in his country. The only monarch who's barely comparable to them is the Saudi (their involvement in Yemen)

I agree that there is little distinction between republics and monarchies but my point isnt that the distinction doesnt matter. Its more that in these cases the governments essentially function like monarchies in practice, even if their rhetoric is republican. the true systems of republican governance have not been implemented in these cases and it isnt really appropriate to gauge them as republics. My point in bringing up Assad and Saddam was to stress that their governments are not in any substantial way republics. Actually I think what is most important in those state systems isnt even the formal system of state but the fact that the political elite classes are derived almost entirely from the country's military. The overwhelming power of Arab militaries in most of the region's states results in extreme military corruption, brutal violence and torture and an authoritarian restructuring of society in rigid terms. I think more important than how the states are formally structured is that their military power structures are formally and totally dismantled which is EXTREMELY difficult in practice. Its even more difficult to do this without introducing an alternative, unaccountable power structure.

Here's the kicker about nepotism. Nepotism doesn't get better in a republic, on the contrary it gets worse. Think about it. Instead of the royal or imperial family looking out for each other, it's now the political 'party'. That political party could have lots of members. Each member most likely has family ranging from children, siblings, cousins, parents, grandparents etc. Do you honestly think that a party member is going to ignore them? Or said party member's family is not going to use their connections with the party to get what they want?
Here's the thing, nepotism is part of human nature. If you monarchies are at high risk of nepotism then I suggest you look up China's red princes, the absolute fukkery that commie party members and their families got up to in the Soviet Union. Also the USA isn't one to talk about nepotism.

Income disparity - Many of the richest countries in the world are monarchies. Income disparity is caused by corruption. Corruption will happen regardless of a polity being a monarchy or republic.

As for authoritarianism... 20th century republics have monarchies beat many times over. The blood is still wet in many republics.

I think that the royal families in many of these monarchies are so large that often times they and their extended circles practice nepotism to the same extent as in the republics you are describing. Because it isnt just providing for peoples families but also their friends and close associates. We can see this occurs on a huge scale in Saudia and Morocco, for instance. So while the corruption in republics can be extremely deep it will not necessarily be better in a monarchy. (I agree with you on the USA btw).

While many of the richest countries in the world are monarchies it doesn't mean that they have less income disparity. Like in Saudi Arabia (I'm sorry i keep going back to this example but its one of the ones I am most familiar with) its often assumed that poverty is not a major issue and that the population is well provided for. This isn't the case in reality - the Saudi Shi'a live in poverty and are largely disenfranchised by the state. But of course it is not a problem exclusive to monarchies, the US is one of the most income disparate countries in the world.

The reason why 20th century republics seem more authoritarian than the monarchies is because for the most part the most brutal monarchies were not able to sustain themselves in this era. Look at the Shah in Iran for an example of an extremely authoritarian monarchy (btw i understand many consider the Islamic Republic to be worse than the Shah - I don't, the IR actually grants more political freedom and does a better job at feeding its people. They dont do a great job of either of these things but compared to the Shah I think its night and day). It fell apart both due to the extreme violence of SAVAK and the absolute poverty the countryside was kept in during his rule. It lost its legitimacy because the Iranian people no longer saw it as representing them or their interests. Most of the republics have been better at sustaining themselves in the last century because a monarch's claims to legitimacy become extremely weak when he cannot provide for his people. Republics can sustain that to a greater extent.

None of this is to say that republics are a perfect system or necessarily the system we should strive for. But I'm not convinced that monarchies are the best solution to the problems of republics (and in general I'm not sure what system is).

 

[The Wall Is Undefeated!]

Thanks for your reply.

my point wasnt to highlight that corruption was worse in the Yemeni Republic, it was to emphasize that while there was more corruption the state also provided MORE (still not a lot or the appropriate amount) for its people. in a very poor country like Yemen this might not seem significant but it needs to be emphasized how completely detached the Imamate was from improving peoples lives at the start of the Twentieth Century. I am Zaydi myself but this was clearly a case where the country either needed a completely new Imamate with a distinct political structure or a new form of government (which is what happened). And while i think that North and South Yemen were more appropriate as different states given their unique political histories it should be noted that North Yemen's monarchy ended and the Republic began decades before the unification.

I can't speak on Yemeni politics all that much.

I agree that there is little distinction between republics and monarchies but my point isnt that the distinction doesnt matter. Its more that in these cases the governments essentially function like monarchies in practice, even if their rhetoric is republican. the true systems of republican governance have not been implemented in these cases and it isnt really appropriate to gauge them as republics. My point in bringing up Assad and Saddam was to stress that their governments are not in any substantial way republics. Actually I think what is most important in those state systems isnt even the formal system of state but the fact that the political elite classes are derived almost entirely from the country's military. The overwhelming power of Arab militaries in most of the region's states results in extreme military corruption, brutal violence and torture and an authoritarian restructuring of society in rigid terms. I think more important than how the states are formally structured is that their military power structures are formally and totally dismantled which is EXTREMELY difficult in practice. Its even more difficult to do this without introducing an alternative, unaccountable power structure.

At the bolded part - I'm sorry this a cop out usually used by many 20th century republican apologists. That won't fly with me.
Over the course of the 20th century we've had some of the most oppressive regimes in human history
Like:
Adolf Hitler
Chairman Mao
Lenin
Trotsky
Stalin
Kruschev
Brezhnev
Andropov
Gorbachev
Pol Pot
Suharto
Ho Chih Min
The multiple Latin American dictators like Pinochet
The Taliban
Assad
Mohammed Said Barre
The apartheid regime
Mugabe
Idi Amin
Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gaddafi
Hosni Mubarak
Nicolae Ceausescu
Franco
Salazar of Portugal
Alexander Lukashenko
Josip Broz aka Tito
The Kims of North Korea
Erich Honecker
Mobutu
Fulgencio Batista
Fidel Castro
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow
Omar Al-Bashir
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
Ayatollahs of Iran

All leaders of republics. Are you going to me that they weren't/aren't real republics? What makes a republic real anyway?

Btw I'm not justifying atrocites of monarchies. An atrocity is an atrocity regardless.

I think that the royal families in many of these monarchies are so large that often times they and their extended circles practice nepotism to the same extent as in the republics you are describing. Because it isnt just providing for peoples families but also their friends and close associates. We can see this occurs on a huge scale in Saudia and Morocco, for instance. So while the corruption in republics can be extremely deep it will not necessarily be better in a monarchy. (I agree with you on the USA btw).

Not really. While I might agree the Saudi royal family, you can't use it for many constitutional monarchies. Also the red 'princes and princesses' of China and the antics of the party members of the Soviet Union beg to differ. Extended family is rarely part of the picture when it comes to the affairs of politics. Close friends nearly always trumps extended family. What makes you think that political party members won't look out for close friends and extended family?

While many of the richest countries in the world are monarchies it doesn't mean that they have less income disparity. Like in Saudi Arabia (I'm sorry i keep going back to this example but its one of the ones I am most familiar with) its often assumed that poverty is not a major issue and that the population is well provided for. This isn't the case in reality - the Saudi Shi'a live in poverty and are largely disenfranchised by the state. But of course it is not a problem exclusive to monarchies, the US is one of the most income disparate countries in the world.

True to a certain extent. As I stated previously. Income disparity is the result of corruption. However isn't it funny that republics

The reason why 20th century republics seem more authoritarian than the monarchies is because for the most part the most brutal monarchies were not able to sustain themselves in this era. Look at the Shah in Iran for an example of an extremely authoritarian monarchy (btw i understand many consider the Islamic Republic to be worse than the Shah - I don't, the IR actually grants more political freedom and does a better job at feeding its people. They dont do a great job of either of these things but compared to the Shah I think its night and day). It fell apart both due to the extreme violence of SAVAK and the absolute poverty the countryside was kept in during his rule. It lost its legitimacy because the Iranian people no longer saw it as representing them or their interests. Most of the republics have been better at sustaining themselves in the last century because a monarch's claims to legitimacy become extremely weak when he cannot provide for his people. Republics can sustain that to a greater extent.

Well written but it's flawed.
To say what you've said we'd have to ignore most 20th century history.
Many republics of the 20th century (and still to this very day) have/had sustained themselves through sheer corruption, tyranny and brutality. To say otherwise is delusional.

Lets compare:
Imperial Russia to Soviet Union
Qing China to the Republic of China then PR of China
Libyan Kingdom to Gaddafi's Libya
Kingdom of Cambodia to Pol Pot's Cambodia
The German Empire under the Hohenzollern dynasty to Nazi Germany
Portuguese Kingdom to António de Oliveira Salazar
There's a lot more.

19th and 20th century history shows that when a monarchy becomes a republic, that new republic becomes a lot worse than the monarchy it replaced in a space of ~35 years.
People that believe in republicanism have had a century to prove republics less brutal than monarchies. Frankly they have failed and more people (especially political scientists) are waking up to that fact.

(Btw, I'll admit this is anecdotal. I've met and talked to plenty of Iranians that fled Iran after the deposing of the Shah. Many have no love for the Shah. However, they hate the ayatollahs and mullahs even more.)

None of this is to say that republics are a perfect system or necessarily the system we should strive for. But I'm not convinced that monarchies are the best solution to the problems of republics (and in general I'm not sure what system is).

No such thing as a perfect system.

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

@Mhofu Ok i think the crux of this issue is what a "real" republic is. I look at it very simply. In an actual republic governance of the state is seen as a public affair and the public at large has a genuine impact on governance of the state. So a republic can be authoritarian if its people want and influence it to behave in this way - like in India today - but in a country like Saddam's Iraq the impact of popular will on policy is irrelevant. I don't think a country like that is really a republic.

I think we agree on republics sustaining themselves through violence my point was just that its much more difficult for monarchies to do that. So as a result the monarchies that still exist today are generally better than the ones that have been erased through revolutions and other historical evolutions.

I have no issue with constitutional monarchies but in a country like the United Kingdom doesn't Parliament and the Prime Minister essentially function like a republic? I might be mistaken but in most of these cases I see the monarchy as more of a figurehead than a political leader.

Political party members do look after friends and family, of course.

As far as Iran I have personal friends who are similar to what you are describing. I have also done a lot of research on the Shah's government and the Islamic Revolution. I think most of the people who left the country after the Revolution tend to come from the wealthier more elite class of Tehran that benefited more under the Shah. They generally prefer the Shah's system, but the majority of Iran's population is poorer and more religious. They see the Islamic Republic as a government that is more representative of them and pursuant of their interests than the Shah's was.

Also I want to address the examples of the PRC and USSR you raised. While I'm no apologist for these states and recognize that their increasingly centralized political power led to incredible violence and assaults on human rights, it is worth noting that they were both seen as completely backwards countries in terms of human and economic development while they were ruled by dynasties. the USSR and PRC (under Deng not Mao) were able to transform them into economic superpowers and modern states. We don't have any evidence that this would have occurred under the imperial families that ruled them before. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing but again, it raises the question of whether people would rather have a regime that provides less for its people, or one that provides more but is also more restrictive and brutal. I would prefer the less restrictive state but others might disagree.