one immediate concern that comes to mind with a "constitutional monarchy" is the idea of the entire state being represented in a single person. things can get complicated when that individual falls prey to death, or vacates their position for some reason, because of the vacuum of power it leaves behind and all the chaos that ensues. in addition to the negative effects the death of a leader has on the psyche of the people.
also, it doesnt seem like the leader in a constitutional monarchy has a lot of judicial power, much like the president of the US. and imo if we elect a head of state, then we should look for the wisest, smartest, most virtuous person in the country and give them a substantial amount of power to influence the direction of the country. if i elect a single person to represent the nation i want an inspirational leader, not a figurehead.
those would be a couple of immediate concerns, but let's go point by point.
In the most basic sense, it is a monarchy that limits the power of the monarch through a constitution.
I can come up with more specific stuff, but I would say many propositions and referendums for the citizenry to vote on, 2 year terms, 3 term limit for congressmen/members of the parliament with votes halfway through on job satisfaction (if below a certain % they must go up for election on next slated vote (referendum etc)),
i love this idea. but to play devil's advocate, this idea requires a lot of civic engagement to be effective. politicians already have these kind of term limits now, but we still let them get away with murder. politicians pay attention to the public in the immediate months leading up to the elections, but ignore us the other months of the year. leading up to elections all the politicians are making the rounds in the streets, on television, in the neighborhoods, in local churches, etc., and after they get elected they go back to work for their corporate masters.
so how do we avoid the same pitfalls?
we also have to get into the discussion of how campaigns are conducted. because as long as corporations are financing the politicians, the politicians are going to support corporate initiatives. so how do we go about better structuring election campaign finance?
8 year term for monarch (3 term max, with satisfaction votes every 4 years),
same concern as above
laws and stipulations for immediate deposal or another election,
i absolutely love this concept. i think this is one of the few solutions we could implement in our current social condition that could change things dramatically. again, it would take a lot of civic engagement to be effective, but i think this is exactly the type of thing that could get people excited about the political process again. and excited people are engaged people.
technocratic elements for each department/industry (panel made through appointment, who must collect votes from peers in the field to determine planning and appropriation of funds),
sounds ok... i'd need a few more specifics to form a solid opinion though.
power of the monarch to veto passed propositions/referendums if passed under a certain %, strong legal system of which the monarch can only be a tie breaking vote in Supreme Court (even number of judges),
no problem with any of that
strict limits on salary/earnings of those in the gov't,
i like that, might be tough to enforce though.
love that. thats probably the best idea in this thread. eliminating the parties would bring nothing but positive benefits imo
full disclosure on legislation (if something gets passed under a certain %, then it gets voted on by public as yay or nay and sent to monarch for approval if majority votes in favor) and candidates,
im with all this... especially getting the public more involved in the tie-breaking aspect of a vote
process for quick repeal of laws and monarch can only nominate or endorse a candidate to replace him if the monarch leaves office on his own or goes through max years of reign.
respect
but if he leaves office in disgrace we might have to revisit this
____________________
all in all good points.
when i originally asked this question, i was thinking about what system would work best given our CURRENT political and economic climate. yours looks good on paper, but so did the original charter of the US, and look where that's gotten us.
whatever solution we implement has to address the private interest domination of public policy. until we get the money out of politics and restore some integrity we're going to run into the same problem no matter what system we put in place.
but props for the response. and props for the good dialogue my man!
Its never been implemented. I cant factually say it would be great, anymore than you can blame it for inequality. What I can say is that the inequality we see is a product of the system, and anarchy necessarily removes that system.
and no they are not the same thing.
let s see if I go this correct.
