Republic, your views on being one?

Affable

How does it effect the mentality? I used to be a firm anti-authoritarian and republican, now I'm not sure if it doesn't leave one feeling slightly empty to have no monarchy, and total equality. Who else you gonna treat as an authority? Politicians? Maybe arbitrariness is not such a bad thing.

apoch632

I wish we were actually a republic along the French or American lines where the President has actual power when it comes to national policy

Affable

apoch632 wrote: »

I wish we were actually a republic along the French or American lines where the President has actual power when it comes to national policy

Sure. But how do you think it effects the mentality, to be a citizen not a subject, as it were?

turgon

It really shouldnt tbh, its one of those things people put on a pedestal and take pride in just to feel good.

Consider that China is a Peoples Republic and that the USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

It, like 'democracy', is a bandied around term that is applied to anything and everything with some kind of grammatical goal in mind.

SeanW

Affable wrote: »

How does it effect the mentality? I used to be a firm anti-authoritarian and republican, now I'm not sure if it doesn't leave one feeling slightly empty to have no monarchy, and total equality. Who else you gonna treat as an authority? Politicians? Maybe arbitrariness is not such a bad thing.

I really fear for the future of mankind sometimes :mad:

Seriously, how are our lives "slightly empty" by not being subordinate to an antiquated monarchy? As a general rule, the kind of people who want authority are the kind of people who shouldn't have it. We're lucky enough to not live in a craphole like China or the Islamic World, and we should be trying to preserve and expand our freedoms instead of going in those directions.

8-10

Affable wrote: »

Who else you gonna treat as an authority?

God obviously. Humans should be equal.

P. Breathnach

It might be that Irish people do not have a solid sense of being citizens in a republic. The key point is that sovereignty vests in the people. To me, that means that elected politicians are answerable to us.

Yet is is part of our political culture that people approach their representatives as supplicants, something that our politicians encourage through their way of doing business. I should not need the services of a TD to vindicate my rights in relation to the state, and I am pleased to say that I never used one. On the other hand, I have argued the toss with public representatives about policy. That's my way of making politicians answerable to this one member of the public.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

Seriously, how are our lives "slightly empty" by not being subordinate to an antiquated monarchy? As a general rule, the kind of people who want authority are the kind of people who shouldn't have it.

Monarchs, as a rule, are saddled with the job rather than aspiring to it.

Because our nearest monarchy is the UK, we tend to allow our view of monarchy to be coloured by (a) the fact that we have relatively recently gained independence from that monarchy, and (b) the intensely conflicted love-hate relationship the people of the UK have with their royal family.

Contrast (for example) Denmark, where there's almost no republican sentiment whatsoever, and the royal family are viewed with almost universal affection.

We're lucky enough to not live in a craphole like China...

Which is, ironically, a republic.

Tristram

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yet is is part of our political culture that people approach their representatives as supplicants...

An important point in relation to this topic methinks.

Deedsie

Not one human should have a divine right to rule another.

We are all equal in a republic, granted some are more equal than others. But the idea of bring a monarch back to the Republic would make me sick.

I take pride in Irelands independence and our ancestors struggle to achieve the Republic. If you must look to someone in an exalted position lots of Irish people are interested in the British royal family.

President McAleese will do me though.

turgon

Deedsie wrote: »

We are all equal in a republic

But as myself and oscarBravo said China is also a republic. Being a republic means absolutely nothing in this regard. Its a term that people use to try and give the impression of freedom and independence, but in reality in means nothing. Even the "republic" of North Korea practices some from of head of state inheritance.

P. Breathnach

turgon wrote: »

... Being a republic means absolutely nothing in this regard...

Not quite: calling a political entity a republic is not a guarantee that it is one.

turgon

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not quite: calling a political entity a republic is not a guarantee that it is one.

True, but would it be fair to say it has become so muddled that the term is nearly redundant?

solice

After watching season 1 of the Tudors over the last couple of days, thank god we dont have a monarchy!

Republic means different things in different parts of the world, for me, I feel completly fulfilled that I live in the Irish Republic, all citizens are equal*, all citizens are held accountable*, nobody has automatic privilleges but everybody has automatic rights. The idea that there is a family or a person who has a "God given right" to a special place in society scares me. But there is a romantic image associated with it which I can appreciate.

*As a society we are still working on this bit but it is a work in progress

turgon

solice wrote: »

I feel completly fulfilled that I live in the Irish Republic, all citizens are equal*, all citizens are held accountable*, nobody has automatic privilleges but everybody has automatic rights.

But is that due to fact we are a republic, or rather because we are a liberal democracy with a proper enough constitution?

Fratton Fred

I don't see what being a republic has to do with it fulfilment or anything else to do with out daily lives to be honest.

The elected government is where the power sits and as long as that government operates in a reasonable and competant manner then the over riding authority, be it a monarch or a President, is largely irrelevant, unless that person has real power, as in France and the US.

There is a lot said about the British monarchy, but in reality the Queen has a lot less power than, say, the President of the US.

Most monarchies, especially in europe, know now that their position is one of privilage and as such do not abuse it. Any monarch who decided to thw their weight around and act against public opinion would soon have their wings clipped.

P. Breathnach

turgon wrote: »

True, but would it be fair to say it has become so muddled that the term is nearly redundant?

Yes, as the word is used in casual conversation, and again yes as the word is used by many to make distorted claims. About the only time the word Republic is useful is in discussions like this, when people are considering how a political unit is structured.

Of course, we in Ireland have an extra complication with the use of the term Republican.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Personally, I won't "look up" to someone unless they've earned it.

I'll treat everyone as an equal until I've determined whether they deserve more or less respect, through their actions and attitude.

Stupid titles granted on the whim of a Queen or whoever (such as "Sir") are bull****. Fawning over crap politicians likewise.

Titles earned, or worked for (and this includes a Garda or whoever, who has training and does a job) fair enough.....likewise a security guy or whoever; if they're just "doing their job" and are there for a reason that has an overall purpose, then they'll get a level of respect from me based on working towards or earning their position, and it would take a really crap attitude or "unreasonableness" on their part before I'd question that.

But just because someone in authority scored and shagged someone and had a kid doesn't make that kid automatically entitled to anything - they have to earn it the same as anyone else.

We grew up on fairy-tales of princes and princesses, but now I view that as a load of elitist crap.

getz

all the republic has done ,is to replace monarchy with the pope,and thats just not my opinion.

JonathanAnon

Any system could work, the problem is the people you get to run them.

Hitler, for example did a lot of good things for the German ecomony but had a few minor flaws (in that he liked to invade bigger countries, and liked to kill races that didn take his fancy). National Socialism could have been positive, but the people who ran it had serious psychological problems.

Communism, usually judged by Stalin or China. But Stalin killed half of his own army and anybody who opposed him during the 1930s which is why they were so badly prepared before the war. Again, the man running the system was a nutter.

A Monarchy could also work, but you will live or die by the flaws of the king.

So I dont think that there's anything wrong with each of the systems, it is the people who run it that cause the problems.

turgon

JonathanAnon wrote: »

So I dont think that there's anything wrong with each of the systems, it is the people who run it that cause the problems.

The problem is such systems spawn such people. Once they get absolute power they begin to abuse it.

pablomakaveli

getz wrote: »

all the republic has done ,is to replace monarchy with the pope,and thats just not my opinion.

Here we go.:rolleyes:

I don't see anyone in this country listening to the pope anymore. He's becoming as irrelevant to the world as the queen is to the UK.

As for the Republic i think of all the possible regimes it is the best especially to the common man/woman on the street as it is a sytem that allows their voice to be heard.

Sand

We are not a republic. We have some trappings of a republic but they are all deliberately powerless - we are a representitive democracy, tending more to liberal democracy than illiberal.

Large parts of the country, particularly outside of Dublin are feudal democracies, with particular political clans claiming the allegiance of voters in return for favours in a pretty clear cut exchange.

Fratton Fred

turgon wrote: »

The problem is such systems spawn such people. Once they get absolute power they begin to abuse it.

Ireland is a republic with a massively democratic system (too democratic I think) and yet it has a party that has abused its position.

"..It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, other than all those already tried" (Or something like that)

Anonymous1987

I think the fact that Ireland is called a republic does not make a whole lot of difference, the president of Ireland is largely symbolic and her powers are not much greater than that of the Queen, the main difference is that the president is elected. From the mindset of the people I guess you could be equally nationalistic about a republic as you could about a monarchy.

mikemac

Glad to be a citizen rather a subject.

Though I'm not sure why some Irish cities had Lord Mayors.

Affable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Queen being head of state and basically having bugger all power, but being an 'arbitrary' representative and tradition that inspires interest, and support, is hardly comparable to people succumbing to the rule of Stalin. Come now.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

The Queen being head of state and basically having bugger all power, but being an 'arbitrary' representative and tradition that inspires interest, and support, is hardly comparable to people succumbing to the rule of Stalin. Come now.

Yes I think that is why he distinctly pointed to the monarchy in Europe before the nineteenth century.

Affable

turgon wrote: »

Yes I think that is why he distinctly pointed to the monarchy in Europe before the nineteenth century.

Yes, and he was using that as evidence that 'arbitrariness', which I referenced in reference to today's, and the future's royals, is a bad thing.

Fratton Fred

mikemac wrote: »

Glad to be a citizen rather a subject.

Me too

Manach

I disagree, having a constitution monarchy instead of this elected oligarchy might have the benefit of having decisions based a long term viewpoint instead of an election cycle.

Hookey

Wow there's a lot of misinformation on here, and clearly a lack of understanding of the (lack) of power the British monarchy has. For a start, Brits aren't subjects, they're citizens (I've just checked my girlfriend's passport), there is no "divine right" to be a monarch (a certain O.Cromwell put a stop that nonsense a long time ago), and a constitutional monarch isn't any different for practical purposes than a figurehead president. Doesn't mean I agree with hereditary power, and particularly its UK expression of it (waste of money despite all the nonsense about attracting tourists), but would I feel any different if I was Dutch or Norwegian rather than Irish? Doubt it.

futurehope

Affable wrote: »

How does it effect the mentality? I used to be a firm anti-authoritarian and republican, now I'm not sure if it doesn't leave one feeling slightly empty to have no monarchy, and total equality. Who else you gonna treat as an authority? Politicians? Maybe arbitrariness is not such a bad thing.

Interesting thoughts Affable. The beauty of The UK monarchy is that it is above politics. Our head of state is politically neutral in the truest possible sense and can command the loyalty of all the people of The UK. It is it's very arbitrariness that gives it that special value. Wondeful...

BornToKill

Republic, your views on being one?

I think it would be nice.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Sand: Large parts of the country, particularly outside of Dublin are feudal democracies, with particular political clans claiming the allegiance of voters in return for favours in a pretty clear cut exchange.

Spot on! It's how one gets tarmacadam laid up to one's front door!

ChocolateSauce

So long as democracy and human rights are respected, I wouldn't mind living in a state that wasn't a republic. The important thing is ultimately that the citizens are free people, and while history has shown us that only democracy can truly accomplish this on a large scale, hypothetically it isn't a requirement. For example, Monaco and Lichtenstein are ruled by Princes and have very limited democracy, but the citizens are not oppressed in practice.

If I had to choose a form, I would say the American model is probably the best, although it wouldn't exactly fit a one-state nation. I do not like the way in Westminster-style parliaments the executive also occupies the legislative.

As it happens I think at this moment in time many of freer countries in Europe are also Kingdoms or otherwise Royal-The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Denmark...while some of the less free ones are Republics, like Poland, Germany and Austria.

Terrontress

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So long as democracy and human rights are respected, I wouldn't mind living in a state that wasn't a republic. The important thing is ultimately that the citizens are free people, and while history has shown us that only democracy can truly accomplish this on a large scale, hypothetically it isn't a requirement. For example, Monaco and Lichtenstein are ruled by Princes and have very limited democracy, but the citizens are not oppressed in practice.

If I had to choose a form, I would say the American model is probably the best, although it wouldn't exactly fit a one-state nation. I do not like the way in Westminster-style parliaments the executive also occupies the legislative.

As it happens I think at this moment in time many of freer countries in Europe are also Kingdoms or otherwise Royal-The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Denmark...while some of the less free ones are Republics, like Poland, Germany and Austria.

In what way would you see Germany as being "less free"? I find it to be one of the most liberal nations on Earth. Much more so than Ireland definitely.

My knowledge of Austria is not so great and of Poland much less but I don't understand where you are coming from.

ChocolateSauce

Terrontress wrote: »

In what way would you see Germany as being "less free"? I find it to be one of the most liberal nations on Earth. Much more so than Ireland definitely.

My knowledge of Austria is not so great and of Poland much less but I don't understand where you are coming from.

No doubt German people are more liberal than Irish ones in many ways, but there are a number of things you cannot do it Germany that you can here. In Germany and Austria, it can be illegal to express your opinion on the holocaust if your opinion is different from that of the official, state recognised version, and indeed people have been jailed for this crime (expressing a non-state approved opinion was a crime under Hitler and Stalin, and is on the books today in China). The fact the Government has the legal power to do this makes Germany a less free nation than many others in principle if not in practice.

I was mainly coming from this angle.

Terrontress

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No doubt German people are more liberal than Irish ones in many ways, but there are a number of things you cannot do it Germany that you can here. In Germany and Austria, it can be illegal to express your opinion on the holocaust if your opinion is different from that of the official, state recognised version, and indeed people have been jailed for this crime (expressing a non-state approved opinion was a crime under Hitler and Stalin, and is on the books today in China). The fact the Government has the legal power to do this makes Germany a less free nation than many others in principle if not in practice.

I was mainly coming from this angle.

That is a fairly narrow criterion to have based your statement on which really must affect such a small percentage of Germans as to make it irrelevant.

The whole notion of blasphemous libel on our statute books is surely much more draconian than the German position.

Germany seems to have much less of a nanny state than most European countries. Liberal position on prostitution, drugs, speed limits. Strong employees' rights, anti-racism laws.

thebman

The last person I'd look up to is a political leader. They have all gotten their hands dirty to get to where they are.

I wouldn't mind if the president had more powers. I'd certainly prefer if the Taoiseach had less powers.

ChocolateSauce

Terrontress wrote: »

That is a fairly narrow criterion to have based your statement on which really must affect such a small percentage of Germans as to make it irrelevant.

With all due respect, if you think the relevance of the freedom to promote Nazi views depends on the number of people who actually want to, you don't understand what is at stake or why it is a problem.

The whole notion of blasphemous libel on our statute books is surely much more draconian than the German position.

While I wouldn't call the German laws draconian, they are more serious in some ways. The notion of a blasphemy law is silly and probably unenforceable; the notion that a Government can lock you up for expressing an opinion, no matter how abhorrent it may be, is scary, and Germany and Austria have done just this. Why just today this article showed up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8163918.stm), where the authorities had to decide whether or not to arrest a man for making a garden gnome which was Nazi saluting.

Germany seems to have much less of a nanny state than most European countries. Liberal position on prostitution, drugs, speed limits. Strong employees' rights, anti-racism laws.

I would say sensible positions, and the Germans are nothing if not sensible.

Bragadin

This country certainly isn't culturally bankrupt, but i do see a lack of something that many other european nations enjoy. In the constitutional monarchies of europe or even the US, the head of state represents more then just the guarantor of the constitution, he/she represents a sort of national continuity, the guardian of the cultural core of the nation.

In europe, the head of government and their ministers are representative of the current transient policies of today. So they fall from favour in accordance with their policies and they are exposed to open debate on them. When the head of state is decoupled from this they represent a national focus that is unchanging and personifies the spirit of a nation. Modern european monarchs have little power and thus can be separated from the contemporary change in prosperity and controversy.

This idea obviously does not require a 'monarch' per say, it doesn't have to take on an alien character i don't think. In the US the president isn't decoupled from his policies but he still some how represents this concept of national continuity in a different way.

There are other sources of 'national continuity' enjoyed in many countries. In Ireland we don't have a strong maritime or military tradition, nor do we have a distinct tradition of pageantry or ceremony, and sadly Irish patriotism is too often associated with revolutionary republicanism. This kind of idea naturally sometimes makes a virtue out of opposition to the establishment (no matter how well deserved) and can be counter productive. This problem isn't unique to our country, there are analogues in relatively new republics across europe. But i suppose we need to create a sort of national identity that can be reconciled with the state without forgetting how it came into being.

I'm not sure what this would be like exactly. There’s also a reasonable argument that we don't need any national identity other then a cultural one.