- Jun 10, 2015
- Reaction score
But if the king will have the last word in forming the budget and deciding on taxes, all these parliament rights on tourism, infrastructure, health services will have little meaning.
Lower the electoral threshold? I thought Israel needs quite the opposite. To block minor parties getting in the parliament and dictating their demands.
That's a good point, I can see how a veto and a monarch associate with diminishing of representation and absolute power. It is true to abuse of power in every hierarchy,
whereas my point is introduction of the royal institute is a democratic process,
and the veto allows direct representation in legislation.
Spectrum and practical application
Let's examine the question on a spectrum, not as absolute terms,
there's mixture of nepotism and representation in every polity,
but to examine practical application -
Athens Direct Democracy - all policy is a referendum, on one end,
Tsarist Monarchy - ultimate nepotism by a reign of terror, as another extreme.
When measuring Representative Democracy on the spectrum, I see that result in practice is the worst of both extremes. As in what prof. Bin-Nun said, all Democracy is channeled into a choice of 1-3 individuals, to address a wide range of questions, and not being inquired about anything forth. While the representative You chose for the ultimate seat in the govt,
even if wanted, isn't allowed power to realize any long term policy by definition.
Therefore, and this is neither main nor the best reason for Parliamentary Monarchy,
but introducing the royal institute isn't change in citizen representation in the
government under Representative Democracy, effectively it's a diluted
Monarchy. However a Parliamentary Monarchy can practically allow
more elements of Direct Democracy.
Cantonization - local government
This is a move towards, integration of the Direct Democracy trajectory.
As states have district governments, in Israel the districts are the 12 tribal lots.
By giving more power to local governments without having a powerful authority,
introduces new levels to power struggle because the districts aren't self sufficient.
However by introducing elements of Direct Democracy on the district level,
not only each vote increases Democracy by 100% compared to now,
functionally citizenry serves as an advisory institute, a govt branch,
to ensure coordination in long term strategy, the very purpose of
the monarch in Parliamentary Monarchy.
With a powerful local government, direct participation,
there're also a lot more creative economic options between
the 12 districts and each their advantages for the long term policy.
Popular vote in the choice of the monarch
The very commandment to establish a monarchy is conditioned by the nation's judgement of monarchies being the most successful at the time, compared to other forms of government.
From the stand point of Hebrew court any rule has the general standing of a monarchy,
be it representative democracy or absolute monarchy. The generalization serves the
the purpose, at times when people prefer a monarchy, its a branch that forms and
integrates with a previously existing government, rather than replaces it,
into a dynamic structure.
With authority of the royal institute being itself result of democratic process,
each monarch also has to be literally chosen by the nation, even when
being the first in line to heir the throne, this is not to imply rebellion
and a ceremonial coronation being the extent of the choice; But a
political process in which the parliament acts as an intermediary
branch between the monarch and the local governments to
review policy both ways and from additional branches.
Rambam and legislative branches
Though being the ultimate Halachic source on the rules of the monarchy,
the tendency to immediately go towards the last part of Mishneh Torah,
along with the rules Sanhedrin can be misleading without being used
to Rambam's pedagogic method and terminology with reference
from previous volumes. But there's a principle regarding all rules
of Monarchy and the Temple, that is clear without much
explanation - the world functions normally.
This is not an ideology of 'one for all solution' to all political challenges,
that implies sharp reforms or even replacing the current structure,
rather a natural political process, function of public policy, similar
to formalizing Shabat with other holidays and Hebrew. Likely the
establishment of the Sanhedrin by parliamentary means,
confirms the authority of what the Hebrew court calls
the 'Takanat Kahal' in direct legislative process.
In that context addition branches can be established to separate the power,
and assign certain roles in addition to those currently functioning, as the
civil, high and Rabbinic courts, the Sanhedrin and a tribal council,
with the parliament functioning as the intermediary coordinator.
Between a President and a Monarch main difference
are length and stability possible in main authority,
while some diluted to mere ceremonial function,
as the Queen in Britain or the President in Israel.
I'm not saying it's a solution for every nation,
this is a transition I see clarifying in these
episodes of our frequent elections.
What do You prefer, the possibility to change a President every election,
or powerful local governments with direct votes on policy?
Propose better alternatives?