Republic or Constitutional Monarchy - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14888050
Paddy14 wrote:I don't understand the problem. We did all this in class, and even I understand that in a Constitutional Monarchy the King or Queen does not rule. She has no power other than to deny absolute power to the executive branch of government. If the Prime Minister and Cabinet act unconstitutionally, the Queen can dissolve Parliament and send the people to the polls. She doesn't make laws or tell anyone what to do. It is probably the best, safest system of government in the world. She is also respected across the world, and I know the US system is not the only other choice, but do we want to be represented in the world by someone like President Trump? :D


Well, in theory the British Crown has absolute power. After all the military in subject nations are loyal to the Crown. So in an emergency the Crown controls the guns. And you know what Mao said about power and guns.


But back to Australia. If we turfed out the Queen, we would be replaced her with an elected version of reserved power. So the president would be the holder of the reserve powers rather than the top of executive power as in France or America. The PM and his cabinet would remain the focus of executive power as well as leading legislative power by leading the parliament.

The main issue is how to elect the symbolic head of state. The political establishment wanted to appoint or vote within the parliament. So they would decide. Others prefer a popular vote. In any event, the candidates would likely be retired politicians, judges or possibly generals, so it would still be a case of reinforcing establishment power.

I suspect the reason why the last referendum failed was that enough people felt a distant foriegn Queen was sufficiently removed from domestic power groups that she would be more trustworthy in using the reserv powers.
#15115482
quetzalcoatl wrote:The formal makeup of Western democracies is mostly irrelevant nowadays. It's a matter of historical interest to history buffs, perhaps, but it has little effect on the lives of everyday citizens. The semi-official and non-official arms of the deep state assume an ever greater importance, as the electoral stalemate continues unabated.

We are down to one cheer for democracy - soon, perhaps, it will be none.

And when you say deep state what constitutes it?
Because it's often quite a vague term and it's interesting it's sometimes considered conspiratorial thinking, but it doesn't even seem that secretive that, for example, the Australian government is strongly dictated in policy by consultancy firms on tax laws which they then also use to inform big corporations on how to act and what to expect. Or that Murdoch media has close ties to our political leadership and has a PR press team to feed government news in a desired and controlled fashion.
Or that big oil and gas industries are right there advising our prime minister, or that there is also a significant influence of military and intelligence agency associated think tanks influencing policy.

Independent journo summarizes all as much in this very long interview for example, no need to watch but just as an example.
Spoiler: show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDOyrWDKRrM

Just doesn't seem the deep state is all that deep, it's right in the room with the politicians.
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/kim-beazley/
Beazley commenting on Australia’s ‘deep state’ 9.8.16 “Normally when you use the expression ‘deep state’ what you’re talking about is a quite evil process associated with dictatorships that mean that whatever the politics are that run across the surface of a state, underneath it all is the real power that lies in the deep state which is usually a military-intelligence phalanx. Well, we have a benign deep state and the people who are representative of that include many sitting in this room.”
Kim Beazley, newly appointed member of the board of Lockheed Martin Australia, delivering the Australian Naval Institute’s 2016 Vernon Parker Oration

It also seems quite obvious how close politicians and these individuals are when a politician leaves their political career in within days lands a job at some private company and always very high up.
Whether it's with banks, think tanks, intelligence agency and so on. It's little different than seeing how close many lawyers are with the cops as they work so closely together that the idea that they're not "in bed together" a lot of the time seems quite optimistic.
#15115569
Right, there is an unfortunate coincidence of terminology happening with "Deep State," which is why people on the left (me included) probably shouldn't use it - even though the phrase itself was lifted from a left writer and co-opted for the use of the far right. For Trump supporters, Deep State simply means the leftover bureaucracy (particularly the natsec bureaucracy) appointed by Obama plus a liberal seasoning of Jewish international socialism and a pedophile ring operating out of a pizza joint. For true Trump believers, everyone in the government outside of the circle of Trump cronies and GOP enablers is the "Deep State."

For me, "Deep State" is just shorthand for saying the official nominal government (elected officials, appointed judges and bureaucrats) doesn't exercise the control everyone thinks it does. That goes far beyond the traditional influence peddling, lobbying etc. The idea of a Deep State is a permanent government that transcends, and is resistant to, electoral interference. If you've seen the wonderful comedy series Yes, Minister You have some idea how this works in a functioning liberal state.

The innovation of the late 20th century is the hegemonic nature of this permanent shadow government, and its ascendancy over the official government. For my purposes, the US Deep State consists of the leadership of the major parties, national security apparatus, certain non-governmental orgs, and the leadership of the financial sector. A rough approximation is how the Communist Party operates as a parallel government in China, directing and planning the overall strategy implemented by its official government structure. In the US, there's a corporate oligarchy that provides a similar directing agency. As in China, its influence is widespread and inescapable. Of course, the US oligarchy is much more fractured and ineffective than its Chinese cousin, and its lacks a central figure like Xi. There's good reason to believe the US oligarchy has lost its way and is incapable of averting the fallout from numerous unaddressed crises. My observation is it's failing and flailing in quite a dramatic fashion.
#15115581
There are a great many countries in the world that are Constitutional Monarchies, and they appear, for the most part, to be doing pretty well as far as rights and freedoms, as the 'Republics' in the world.

Thailand, Canada, Australia, Scotland, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Jordan, Monaco, Jamaica, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, are all Constitutional Monarchies.

Constitutional Monarchy is less likely to end up becoming a Fascist state. See Roman Empire.
#15115688
quetzalcoatl wrote:Right, there is an unfortunate coincidence of terminology happening with "Deep State," which is why people on the left (me included) probably shouldn't use it - even though the phrase itself was lifted from a left writer and co-opted for the use of the far right. For Trump supporters, Deep State simply means the leftover bureaucracy (particularly the natsec bureaucracy) appointed by Obama plus a liberal seasoning of Jewish international socialism and a pedophile ring operating out of a pizza joint. For true Trump believers, everyone in the government outside of the circle of Trump cronies and GOP enablers is the "Deep State."

A strange fantasy that as far as I can tell seems to rely on asserting vague facts like a lot of rich folks being pedophiles or being linked to dubious activities which in itself need not be denied but this is the point of contention to defend the fantasy of Trump somehow opposing it. A bit like how racists argue certain facts when what they're really arguing is their beliefs which give a racial essentialist interpretation of those facts.

For me, "Deep State" is just shorthand for saying the official nominal government (elected officials, appointed judges and bureaucrats) doesn't exercise the control everyone thinks it does. That goes far beyond the traditional influence peddling, lobbying etc. The idea of a Deep State is a permanent government that transcends, and is resistant to, electoral interference. If you've seen the wonderful comedy series Yes, Minister You have some idea how this works in a functioning liberal state.

I've heard of Yes, Minister but not actually seen it.
But it does make me think of the figures who get kept on or disposed of with a new elected government as it suits the political agenda of the new leadership. Or even in the case of a revolution, where a assertedly new class character is heading the state, the danger of simply keeping the old members of government but also needing their expertise.
I kept thinking how concerning that was when I read about Hugo Chavez and his government where he had populist rhetoric and appealed to marginalized masses but he didn't seem to really do a clean sweep of the government as far as I could tell and as such many within it were not really supporters of his views and values and undermined the pursuit of his policies in varying degrees.
People may conform to a degree but having true believers is important.

I guess in my head the deep state refers to those who pretty much direct policy and the government in some degree but aren't the elected representatives. But I guess that there are sedimented figures that continue between elections and aren't necessarily changed any easier than any other institution.

The innovation of the late 20th century is the hegemonic nature of this permanent shadow government, and its ascendancy over the official government. For my purposes, the US Deep State consists of the leadership of the major parties, national security apparatus, certain non-governmental orgs, and the leadership of the financial sector. A rough approximation is how the Communist Party operates as a parallel government in China, directing and planning the overall strategy implemented by its official government structure. In the US, there's a corporate oligarchy that provides a similar directing agency. As in China, its influence is widespread and inescapable. Of course, the US oligarchy is much more fractured and ineffective than its Chinese cousin, and its lacks a central figure like Xi. There's good reason to believe the US oligarchy has lost its way and is incapable of averting the fallout from numerous unaddressed crises. My observation is it's failing and flailing in quite a dramatic fashion.

Yeah, the community party isn't formally the government but an institutionalized group that dictates it. Thats the kind of basic outlook I have on the think tanks and other institutions. They're not beholden to the people in anyway yet they set the policies.
I am particularly scared for the future of Australia on this front as it seems to be rather short term thinking where there is clear need for long term planning. The major cry out is that Australia is too dependent on exporting its minerals and gas. The need to get ahead on research and development for sustainable energy is absolutely needed for a sustainable future of Australia. But big oil and coal companies are entrenched fetters on the progress of the economy and there is no political leadership with both the power and guts to really head down that path. Leaders who live on the tail of the interests of these groups for their personal gain rather than any foresight for the nation's good.

Indeed, there are always problems bubbling and like a pressure cooker, if left unresolved for too long become major problems. The US feels the same way that Australia does to me in terms of just blatant capitalist rule. There is little even social democratic/fabian socialist power to appease the masses amidst a crisis for fear of the consequences but just doubling down on funneling money and resources to the interests of big corporations.

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

1 The great settlement withdrawal that Israelis […]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]