Two monarchies present their credentials
The Governor-General accepted the credentials of diplomats from two monarchies - Lesotho and Oman - yesterday. I wonder what the diplomats think when they greet our Governor-General: when our diplomats are posted to Oman or Lesotho, they get to meet the King or Sultan. In New Zealand, diplomats get the Queen's conduit.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
I presume an "of the" is missing from between "credentials" and "diplomats".
As Lesotho is part of the Commonwealth, I imagine that diplomats especially would be aware of various commonwealth nations' constitutional arrangements. In any case, a diplomat being posted to a particular country would get a briefing on that country . I would like to think that diplomats from Lesotho and Oman would take more notice of how NZ's constitutional arrangements provides for a vigorous parliamentary democracy.
I presume an "of the" is missing from between "credentials" and "diplomats".
My mistake. Fixed.
As Lesotho is part of the Commonwealth, I imagine that diplomats especially would be aware of various commonwealth nations' constitutional arrangements. In any case, a diplomat being posted to a particular country would get a briefing on that country . I would like to think that diplomats from Lesotho and Oman would take more notice of how NZ's constitutional arrangements provides for a vigorous parliamentary democracy.
Yeah, the Omanian diplomat would wonder why their constitutional monarchy only leads to palace coups and tribal infighting... but seriously, of course they get briefings. Does that mean they see the sense in it?
Does Oman have a parliamentary democracy thriving under its monarch?
"Does that mean they see the sense in it?" No idea.... Maybe they will see it makes alot of sense when they see the comparative stability, democracy and rule of law in this country.
One thing I like about you WM is you never give up...
The fact is that the monarchy in New Zealand contributes to none of those things. I think last time you made the argument the best you could come up with was "it helps". Well given that stability, democracy and the rule of law are strong in republics across the world, and weak in monarchies across the world, the real issue is the strength of civil society, and that society's democratic ethos. I'm yet to hear one reason why a republic in New Zealand would change that.
Does Oman have a parliamentary democracy thriving under its monarch?
Sort of. Their main problem was the last King tried to hold his son under house arrest, so the son staged a Palace Coup (thankfully not Nepal style) and banished dad. As we know, monarchy is really good for setting a good example for families.
The other problem in Oman is that tribal and family factions control the democratic process. That's not something you can change in either a monarchy or republic (just look at Lebanon or Yemen).
"Well given that stability, democracy and the rule of law are strong in republics across the world, and weak in monarchies"....where did you get that from?!
These diplomats will see our stability etc. and will consider that (if they wondered at our particular constitutional arrangements in the first place) our constitution has not impeded good government and maybe even helped foster it.
You're implying that New Zealand has these things because we're a monarchy.
These diplomats will see our stability etc. and will consider that (if they wondered at our particular constitutional arrangements in the first place) our constitution has not impeded good government and maybe even helped foster it.
Sure, the monarchy hasn't impeded good government because it doesn't impede government in anyway at all. New Zealand has a strong democratic ethos expressed through our Parliamentary democracy. That part of our constitution certainly isn't broken. What is broken is the checks and balances on the PM and Cabinet - the moribund monarchy that sits atop our system and doesn't serve us in any way constitutionally.
That's why in the future our parlimentary system needs reviewing.
Our governments of the last 20 years have through immigration are leading to the classic kiwi cultural demise. As the number of foreign born kiwis with different cultures is to high.Aussie examplewww.heraldsun.com.au/...bob-birrell/story-e6frf7l6-1225844560248
When did our politicians ask us about this NEVER????
Our strength of democracy is based on our cultural society not the monarchy.
Yes we can. The "constitutional" monarchy you defend - as it stands today - came into being in the 1800s, and it's the "constitutional" part that matters most to this discussion, since the monarch is absent from New Zealand 99.9% of the time.
It's not sufficient to say the monarchy has been around for "such a long time" for that to mean the monarchy must equate to stability and a strong democracy. Familiarity certainly helps - but if being around for a "long time" means a stronger democracy, why is it countries like Sri Lanka or the Solomon Islands have faced a lot of instability under the Queen?
The answer is that the absentee monarchy doesn't matter in either country, just as it doesn't matter in New Zealand. The Queen's position is merely to act as a rubber stamp to the Prime Minister's recommendation for Governor-General every 5 years.
What matters are things like wealth, education and the strength of civil society. Since New Zealand has had a much longer period of self-rule than either Sri Lanka or the Solomons, and doesn't have deep-seated racial tensions (racial tensions exist, I grant), and higher standards of living, education and social engagement, I'm fairly happy to say our democracy would be safe. Unless you can somehow show that an absentee monarchy provides stability for us, since us poor colonials clearly can't rule ourselves...
" The "constitutional" monarchy you defend - as it stands today - came into being in the 1800s"...surely the Constitutional monarchy developed over the centuries with the magna carta, the limitation of ecclesiastical courts, Edward I and the first statues of westminster, common law, Stuart struggles with parliament, the bill of rights, glorious revolution, etc. etc. It is an ongoing development as the result of the relationship among monarchy, parliament and the rest of society and it reflects the development of ideas and the changes in society and, in turn, influences society by proving a debating chamber (strengthened by the gaining of parliamentary privilege).
We inherited this, and our constitution in NZ continues to develop in its own way (e.g. segregated Maori seats, first commonwealth dominion to enfranchise women, MMP). It would be a leap of faith to assume a republic could piggy-back on this track record - especially if it were to assuage some misplaced nationalism.
No, that's Parliamentary democracy, which was really a process of slowly disassembling the Royal prerogative and making the monarch subject to statute. The "constitutional" part of the monarchy came into being in the 1800s, as Bagehot described it.
Even then the monarchy as it stands today is a shadow of what it was during Victoria's reign.
It would be a leap of faith to assume a republic could piggy-back on this track record - especially if it were to assuage some misplaced nationalism.
Nonsense. Unless you can show the monarchy has any actual constitutional value to New Zealand with respect to our democracy then the examples all still stand - with the possible exception of the Maori seats, all the examples cited were about improving New Zealand's democracy and government in some way. Reform eventually comes about because a pressing need is articulated to the public - of course a republic is part of that. I'm yet to see any actual evidence that the monarchy provides useful checks and balances above and beyond what exist in any stable Parliamentary republic, save for ridiculous claims that New Zealanders are too immature to choose a head of state of our own and would vote in Joe Cotton as head of state, leading to blood on the streets and a constitutional meltdown, with the country becoming the next Zimababwe.
Sure, it was - as in past tense. Today it's a mere petty coat for wily politicians to wield as they please, and serves no practical purpose in New Zealand.
Post new comment