Bloc Quebecois should be excluded from Canadian Coalition

Post Reply New Topic

It is more administratively efficient than other forms of government, is not as short-sighted as democracy (a new government every couple years gives leaders no incentive to look for long-term solutions over quick fixes) and it is not based on the notion that the uneducated, semi-literate masses understand how to make responsible decisions regarding governmental policy. Constantine Pobedonostsev wrote an excellent critique of the theoretical failings of democracy/parliamentarianism in Reflexions of a Russian Statesman. A monarchy permits a state to dispense with politics, because the leader needn't concern him/herself with approval ratings or reelection. Also, the idea that a policy is the best one merely because 51% of the population supports it seems completely absurd to me. In US presidential elections, the one who earns the support of 51% of the people gets 100% of the power. How is that representative government? What happened to the other 49%? Even if we are to say representative government is good (and I would argue that it is not) a truly representative democracy is nearly impossible to actually achieve, and thus any "democracies" are bastardized systems that can't even match their fundamentally flawed ideal.

What safeguards do you suggest to prevent the abuse of power by a monarchy, as is possible when a monarch is raised to the job and is incapable of it? (That is, in the sense of incapable of providing sound government.) I'm thinking in terms of pre-revolutionary French monarchies, and a random assortment of bad British ones. Consider that our current monarch has been ruling for a good half century, and gives no signs of dying yet. If she had complete executive control, and was a poor Queen... we would be stuck in a badly run nation for half a century. (Saying nothing about how well its been run these past 50 years anyway.)

What safeguards do you have in a democracy? Some ignorant rabble who will do as the media tells them? It is possible to limit the power of the monarchy. A minarchist monarchy could give one person absolute control over the administration, but make the role of government strictly limited overall. Constitutional monarchy is a viable option, and there are other powerful elements in society (such as aristocracies/elites in general) that will curb the monarch's power. Russian Emperor Paul I was found to be doing an unsatisfactory job and the nobility only permitted him to retain it for four years- contrast that with American democracy allowing eight full years of Bush. Also, a monarch could potentially be raised from early childhood for the purpose of becoming king/queen, and thus could be given a much better education for the task than the politicians who rise to power in a democracy.

Cultural preservative topic

This has gone beyond culture. It has become opportunistic power politics.
Western Canada has threatened the same thing, in a different way.
The challenge for Canada has always been to balance regional interests through Federalism and Parliament. This is not served through an unelected coalition.

frecnh canadian quebecois here I would just want to warn the general population of WP reading this thread that some of the expressed opinions here do not reflect the general thinking of us and only entails the ones who stated them....

Only problem I have with that is people moaning about "deserving" to rule. We have the House Of Lords here, an unelected peer group (literally) that act as a second layer of government. The amount of bitching that goes on because they get the job just by dint of being born is huge. Many people like the (even notional) idea that they can better themselves, rise up above their station etc, and a lot of people dont think that possible at all under a monarchy.

Vive le Québec libre!

Touche topic

Canadian economic problems are best solved by all parties and with the support of all regions of Canada. It is also a global crisis. We must all work together (even Aspies) for everyone to benefit.

But the Bloc has another agendavia the "coalition". I distrust signed deals like this. Something is creepy about it, and this has been mentioned in my other thread.

Being free, Cyanide, is for all to take responsibility and to see the larger picture. This is not the tme to be insular and retreat into a cocoon. You will not emerge a butterfly.

I don't have a hate for Quebecois who want to preserve their culture. I even stated that in the post you quoted. What I hate is how they're using this 'cultural preservation' as a means of oppressing anybody with different views and to make people see them as victims. There is no threat to Quebec culture, if there was it ended in the 70's when almost all of us English left rather then stay here and be treated like second-class citizens. You don't even understand what its like to go to a hospital and have the staff refuse to communicate with you in English, or be stopped by SQ police officers in your car who will hassle you simply because of your language. No, not a clue apparently. You wouldn't much like living here. But as for what you said to me, I do not have any hatred for the Quebecois at all, considering almost all of my friends here are of French background of some sort. However, none of them are separatists or bigoted.

Also, this isn't about cultural preservation, its about nationalism. Last year at the St Patrick's day parade in Montreal I remember something that angered all the English in the crowd, which represented 90% of it. At the end of the parade was a 'Langue Francais Solidaire' float with a bunch of PQ propaganda symbols and anti-English slogans. What does this have to do with St Patrick's day? All I know is that everybody on the street booed them to the point that they put their offensive sign down.

Which people are moaning? The ruling class does not necessarily have to be drawn from within a purely hereditary group.

That reminds me of a theorized system of monarchical reverse democracy. Basically a monarch rules but periodically a vote is taken to remove them from leadership. If the vote gets a 75% majority that leader is stripped of power and the next in line takes over.

It doesn't really make the leader cater to the whims of the public but it does prevent them from routinely doing things that the people are majorly opposed to.

That's generally what my thoughts on monarchy or autocracy have been. The concept of 'benevolent dictatorship' is in many ways, sound. It really depends on whether there is a statesmen with an administration capable of running the country with it's people's best economic and social interests in mind.

I also have a bit of a libertarian bent, so I don't think the government's responsibilities should be so all-encompassing as some people would have them be. Thus, if the government is only handling a few simple things (military defense, immigration and naturalization, trade relations, provision of basic infrastructure, and a justice system) there isn't too much there that needs to be debated or has a reason to require much of the people's input, and so those administrative tasks can be carried out by some person who has complete control over the governmental apparatus and can coordinate the execution of these tasks effectively and coherently.

I live in the North of England. I hear people bitching and whining day in day out about how much the monarchy costs us, how bad they are, etc etc etc. Theres a lot of it goes on here, and most of it is inaccurate or unjustified. I think the problem is people like to think they are getting to choose, even if they really aren't.

Are you thinking in terms of an autocratic monarchy, or something with a wider input/decision making base - like the UK should have (though it actually does not.) ?

If not hereditary, what would you suggest be the basis for "royal" selection?

meh, there's better writers out there.

I don't especially care what people think. I already mentioned the idiocy of the populace as a strong argument for monarchy over democracy.


None of your fake ceremonial monarchy, thanks. That really is just a waste of money. No, I want an autocracy.


There are various possible schemes, and it would probably depend somewhat on the nature of government and what specifically the job entailed.