Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But as I understand from your previous explanations, your perception of a parliamentary monarchy differs from a basic feature of this concept. A parliamentary monarchy means the monarch has only a ceremonial role without real power.Yes of course, any political system, state form, can be incorporated with a Parliamentary Monarchy, that's the beauty of it, in its flexibility - it is essentially Liberal.
However, I was suggesting a more extreme Democratic experiment,
as a starting point, to fully explore its Liberal boundaries,
by allowing more Direct Democracy in local legislation.
I want Ben-Gvir in the same parliament
with Ismail Hanniyeh, if he survives...
the legal, and electoral threshold.
That's the real political discussion...prevented by guns.
And Ben Gvir would understand what I say, and what to say.
But as I understand from your previous explanations, your perception of a parliamentary monarchy differs from a basic feature of this concept. A parliamentary monarchy means the monarch has only a ceremonial role without real power.
Well, my comparison won't be too pleasant for you, but I think your model has more in common with Iran's structure of power than with a parliamentary monarchy.Also ceremonial, in practice the authority of the nation,
either in direct or representative elections, equals that of the king.
The king in Israel is the main authority on long term economics and military,
can also rule a death penalty in cases the courts can't. That said the nation
has to both authorize a royal, and can prevent his rule according to
constitution - in this case Halachah of kings, overseen by the
Sanhedrin at the Temple Mount, or higher moral authority
at the time of the generation.
Tell me more.Well, my comparison won't be too pleasant for you, but I think your model has more in common with Iran's structure of power than with a parliamentary monarchy.
Not the Shah. The current system of power with their Supreme ayatollah.Tell me more.
Can the Shah be removed by any means but a rebellion?
How is the Shah authorized into power?
More so, it's 'priesthood' in leadership,Not the Shah. The current system of power with their Supreme ayatollah.
More so, it's 'priesthood' in leadership,
we tried that with Hashmoneans,
I am talking about monarchy.
They also have a parliament and direct elections. And even the president.With a parliament,
and more direct elections.
What form of government allows more Democracy?
They also have a parliament and direct elections. And even the president.
I don't believe in a democracy that allows 'democracy' only on a lower level with the 'elite' having a last say on important matters. Democracy is only possible with three independent branches of power.
It is not limited, but it is based on them. If you have some figure or some governmental body that is able to reverse decision of every of these branches, democracy ceases to exist.Is Democracy limited by only 3 branches of power?
Voting in a Monarchy is Democracy,
You don't remove those branches,
You add to them whatever the
nation wants.
Constitutional court is not an opponent to the Supreme Court.
What figure or body is able to reverse the constitutionIt is not limited, but it is based on them. If you have some figure or some governmental body that is able to reverse decision of every of these branches, democracy ceases to exist.
The model you are proposing isn't a parliamentary monarchy.What figure or body is able to reverse the constitution
in a Parliamentary Monarchy?
I'm afraid You're projecting a caricature, without knowing
the aspects of practical legislation and benefits in direct democracy.
The model you are proposing isn't a parliamentary monarchy.
According to your link:Where is the counter argument?
The usual term is 'Constitutional Monarchy',
my only twist is the experiment shifting the democratic process,
into a more direct, rather than representative model of legislation.
Parliamentary Monarchy
"Parliamentary Monarchy" published on by Oxford University Press.oxcon.ouplaw.com
According to your link:
A parliamentary monarchy is a political system where the function of head of state (heads of state and government) is vested in a hereditary or elected monarch while a government accountable to the elected Parliament exercises the bulk of the executive powers, determines national policies and oversees their implementation
In our previous discussion you said that in your model the monarch would have a last say in important political, economic, military and other matters. That is not a parliamentary monarchy.
I don't know where in Europe the monarch has a real power. Maybe in some micro-states.That is exactly what is called "a right to be consulted".
I thought we've already covered the differences
of Absolute and Parliamentary Monarchy.
Why insist any model where a monarch
has more than ceremonial function,
is Saudi Arabia, when this is the
norm of the advanced states
in Europe as well, today?
Constitutional monarchy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And in the Middle East today, the more stable and advanced states,
also happen to be variations of parliamentary monarchies.
What about other continents?
I don't know where in Europe the monarch has a real power. Maybe in some micro-states.
If some autocratic state has a parliament with consulting functions, it doesn't make this state a parliamentary monarchy.
What form of government to choose in Israel is up to the Israeli people. I was not going to criticize anyone. We just discussed various political matters. What else is one supposed to do on a political forum, right?In all monarchies, except Sweden, the monarch has real power.
Does Spain look like a micro-state?
Problem is, You associate 'real power' with absolute monarchy,
and even when constitution gives the monarch any authority,
You call that autocracy, and that has nothing to do with the
legislative function of the parliament.
This just puts a big question on the functionality and relevance
of representative democracy in our day and age.
Would it be Luxembourg, nobody noticed.
But it's Israel,
and an Israeli Monarchy
gets everyone on their tiptoes, good.
What form of government to choose in Israel is up to the Israeli people. I was not going to criticize anyone. We just discussed various political matters. What else is one supposed to do on a political forum, right?
No, not only Sweden. For the most cases the monarch in Europe is a decoration and a mediator, at best. Spain isn't an exception. In some cases the monarchs there have so called reserved power, but they exercise it quite rare if ever.
