Which Country Could Next Abolish Their Monarchy?

[Lumutqueen]

Why would you not be allowed to post about NI? If they wish to split from being part of the British Monarchy, then they have that right.
Personally, I don't think they ever will.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Canada or Australia, if we're talking about other countries in the Commonwealth.

 

[janb]

Canada or Australia, if we're talking about other countries in the Commonwealth.

I agree 100% with Sister Morphine, one of those two is most likley next.

 

[Zonk]

Please posts all future discussion regarding the future of the Commonwealth here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/commonwealth-realms-post-elizabeth-28846.html

 

[Smart]

Europe: Belgium (via partition)
Asia: Vietnam or Japan (yes. Japan)
Africa: Morocco (Lesotho/Swazi too tribal - would be impossible)
The Americas: Canada or Greenland
Rest: Australia - New Zealand - Papua New Guinea

 

[Green Letter]

The Netherlands is the safest, I agree Marsel

Almost every major political party today supports abolition of monarchy and it is just the question of time when it is going to be abolished. Both left and right agree that there is no place for monarch in a modern, democratic society.

It will be gone in maximum 20 years, probably much less.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Green Letter, coudl you provide evidence for your claim?

 

[Biri]

When we see social protests spreading around Tunisia, it can easily flow to all Maghreb countries (besides, it's already visible) - including Morocco, and farther to all Middle East (including Jordan). To be frank, as for now, people blame governments for a bad economic situation in their countries, but it can change soon; after all, Arabian monarchs have much more political power than their European equivalents.

In one of our newspapers I read that Queen Rania said on Twitter that she was praying for Tunisia; and someone "advised" her that instead of praying she should seek a palace in Saudi Arabia; clear illlusion to Ben Ali and his family.

To Smart: Vietnam is not a monarchy.

 

[David V]

To be fair, Tunisia's problems lie in the fact that it (like Egypt) was run by a self-interested clique who utterly failed to take care of their own citizens. At least Morocco and Algeria are far more democratic by allowing free and fair elections.

While the Gulf states are absolute monarchies or semi-absolute, they do provide their citizens a better standard of living and social benefits. The same goes for Brunei. It goes deeper than system of government here, but also highlights the irony of how republican dictatorships like Tunisia and Egypt attempt to perpetuate themselves through family ties and succession, while also failing to look out for the interests of their population.

 

[kathl29]

I don't know enough about the monarchies in the Gulf states to comment but in Europe I think the two monarchies most likely to be abolished are the Dutch and the Belgium ones.

When the the current Crown Princes of these monarchies become King they will have to be good very quickly in my opinion or there is a very good chance that the monarchy will be abolished. Any majorly unpopular actions could be enough to lead to change.

Although there is always a lot of talk in the media about abolishing the Royal Family in the UK I think it is very unlikely this will happen. I think there is a lot of complaints but not yet the impetus that is needed to lead to change.

 

[David V]

I think European monarchies are safe. Nobody in Western Europe wants radical change of their political system because of the lessons of the 20th century where too much change led to the chaos that was World Wars I and II, and what followed after. People can see that the monarchy brings unity and stability above any party politics, and we see that entrusting too much to the politicians and media is a downright dangerous thing (like the US).

 

[Mystiblue]

I doubt New Zealand would ever go republic, but certainly Australia will.....eventually......they've been talking about it for years.

 

[David V]

It's quite different with the Commonwealth Realms because they are not "native" monarchies.

 

[shrifia]

When we see social protests spreading around Tunisia, it can easily flow to all Maghreb countries (besides, it's already visible) - including Morocco, and farther to all Middle East (including Jordan). To be frank, as for now, people blame governments for a bad economic situation in their countries, but it can change soon; after all, Arabian monarchs have much more political power than their European equivalents.

In one of our newspapers I read that Queen Rania said on Twitter that she was praying for Tunisia; and someone "advised" her that instead of praying she should seek a palace in Saudi Arabia; clear illlusion to Ben Ali and his family.

To Smart: Vietnam is not a monarchy.

To be fair, Tunisia's problems lie in the fact that it (like Egypt) was run by a self-interested clique who utterly failed to take care of their own citizens. At least Morocco and Algeria are far more democratic by allowing free and fair elections.

While the Gulf states are absolute monarchies or semi-absolute, they do provide their citizens a better standard of living and social benefits. The same goes for Brunei. It goes deeper than system of government here, but also highlights the irony of how republican dictatorships like Tunisia and Egypt attempt to perpetuate themselves through family ties and succession, while also failing to look out for the interests of their population.

ppl in ME are done and made about their republican system because they plans to make from their republic a monarchies that already happen in Syria and on the way to happen in Egypt and that what should be done in Tunisia if ppl didn't come out to say enough,although things started in Tunisia as protest against poverty and unemployment problemst but end up as a cry for change against a regim who ban them from everything they don't even had the right in Youtube things is abit different in other arab royaltie and countries like (my) Morocco and jordan or event Bahrain for example benefit from something that should be taken in considerations the change of rulers Mohammed VI and King Abdullah as young kings still have trust from their ppl who wait from them to do better I guess.while Mubarak,Ben Ali or even the freak Ghadafi has ruled for so looong without any real changes things get even worst by their attempts to pass the power to thier relatives.
I have to say I don't know much about how things goes in Gulf states but ppl there seem to enjoy the good life oil provides and feel their rules take care well of them IMO.

 

[David V]

ppl in ME are done and made about their republican system because they plans to make from their republic a monarchies that already happen in Syria and on the way to happen in Egypt and that what should be done in Tunisia if ppl didn't come out to say enough,although things started in Tunisia as protest against poverty and unemployment problemst but end up as a cry for change against a regim who ban them from everything they don't even had the right in Youtube things is abit different in other arab royaltie and countries like (my) Morocco and jordan or event Bahrain for example benefit from something that should be taken in considerations the change of rulers Mohammed VI and King Abdullah as young kings still have trust from their ppl who wait from them to do better I guess.while Mubarak,Ben Ali or even the freak Ghadafi has ruled for so looong without any real changes things get even worst by their attempts to pass the power to thier relatives.
I have to say I don't know much about how things goes in Gulf states but ppl there seem to enjoy the good life oil provides and feel their rules take care well of them IMO.

Morocco was very much a police state for most of Hassan II's reign. It was only the Western Sahara dispute that allowed him to make a rapprochement with the opposition, otherwise it might have ended up like Iran. So he allowed a gradual democratisation (also encouraged by his Western allies) continuing under Mohammed VI. In fact, elections in Morocco (and Algeria) are the most democratic in the Arab world. Jordan isn't anywhere near that stage let. So Morocco will be better able to deal with issues because the King has allowed his people to have their say, which compares favourably to Egypt and Tunisia.

The Gulf states provide their citizens with a high standard of living and social benefits, and their rulers are making cautious reforms. So they can maintain respect from their local population and the world.

The Pahlavi monarchy in Iran and Atatürk's Turkey were classical examples of "authoritarian liberal" rule and Tunisia attempted to copy that to a degree. But yes, this model has been rejected.

It's ironic that Gaddhafi overthrew a monarchy, yet in pan-African solidarity, he's now embracing African royalty.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt New Zealand would ever go republic, but certainly Australia will.....eventually......they've been talking about it for years.

I actually think the opposite - when Australia becomes a republic I don't think NZ will be far behind and might even surprise us by becoming a republic first - simply because it is easier for them - they just need a simple majority of the population while we need a majority of the population and a majority of the state (we could actually have a majority vote in favour but not get it through if 4/6 states voted no and given the number of voters in the smaller states and the fact that the ACT and NT aren't states it is theoretically possible).

 

[Keystone]

Almost every major political party today supports abolition of monarchy and it is just the question of time when it is going to be abolished. Both left and right agree that there is no place for monarch in a modern, democratic society.

It will be gone in maximum 20 years, probably much less.

Green Letter, coudl you provide evidence for your claim?

Like the Spanish, the Dutch monarchy is as safe as houses.... current Dutch monarchy enjoyed as much as 85% approval rating in 2009. I agree with David V:

I think European monarchies are safe. Nobody in Western Europe wants radical change of their political system because of the lessons of the 20th century where too much change led to the chaos that was World Wars I and II, and what followed after. People can see that the monarchy brings unity and stability above any party politics, and we see that entrusting too much to the politicians and media is a downright dangerous thing (like the US).

 

[jemagre]

I think European monarchies are safe. Nobody in Western Europe wants radical change of their political system because of the lessons of the 20th century where too much change led to the chaos that was World Wars I and II, and what followed after. People can see that the monarchy brings unity and stability above any party politics, and we see that entrusting too much to the politicians and media is a downright dangerous thing (like the US).

The media can be a dangerous thing regardless of who is in power. A monarchy doesn't make it safer. While I think that the Belgium monarchy is in danger the people might be willing to keep it because it does appear to be a source of unity in a divided country. When the government couldn't agree on which party would lead the country that left King Albert to take over. This move might endure them to the country, because without a monarchy there would have been nobody.

As for the European monarchies, social situations are changing and that effects them. Even popular monarchies like Sweden and England are coming under fire because they are viewed as old-fashioned. I especially think that England's monarchy will continue to go down in size as countries like Australia and Canada decide not to have the Queen as their leader. I think in 50 or 100 years there will probably be no more monarchies in the world.

Public opinion is incredible fickle, one small incident could turn into something big. I remember a few months ago there were riots that swept through England that concerned student tuition fees. Eventually the royal family came under attack due to their money and status. So I don't think anyone can say for certain how stable these types of governments are.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Public opinion is incredible fickle, one small incident could turn into something big. I remember a few months ago there were riots that swept through England that concerned student tuition fees. Eventually the royal family came under attack due to their money and status. So I don't think anyone can say for certain how stable these types of governments are.

The royal family didn't come under attack for any reason other than the fact that Charles and Camilla were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had they stayed at home there would have been no attack on any royals that night. Had they taken a different route, or a different car, there would have been no attack and even if they had been a bit earlier or later.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Think Britian is safe in Europe Belgium.....anywhere else im not sure

 

[Lady Felicity M]

I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now

 

[David V]

The media can be a dangerous thing regardless of who is in power. A monarchy doesn't make it safer. While I think that the Belgium monarchy is in danger the people might be willing to keep it because it does appear to be a source of unity in a divided country. When the government couldn't agree on which party would lead the country that left King Albert to take over. This move might endure them to the country, because without a monarchy there would have been nobody.

As for the European monarchies, social situations are changing and that effects them. Even popular monarchies like Sweden and England are coming under fire because they are viewed as old-fashioned. I especially think that England's monarchy will continue to go down in size as countries like Australia and Canada decide not to have the Queen as their leader. I think in 50 or 100 years there will probably be no more monarchies in the world.

Public opinion is incredible fickle, one small incident could turn into something big. I remember a few months ago there were riots that swept through England that concerned student tuition fees. Eventually the royal family came under attack due to their money and status. So I don't think anyone can say for certain how stable these types of governments are.

Europe's current monarchies are some of the best-functioning democracies anywhere. In fact, it has been shown that a republic is no more democratic or egalitarian, and the monarchy is effective in unifying and upholding the system and its values. Royals shine where politicians flounder and can unite where others divide. Without that, people have nobody to turn to and rally around- which makes much uglier options (or descent into apathy, which is just as dangerous) more viable.

You have to look at the period between the World Wars where the German and Austrian monarchies fell aside, the vacuum created was readily exploited by Hitler. If those monarchies had survived, there is good reason to suggest the rise of Hitler may have been averted. The only European republic that maintained democratic government to the end was Czechoslovakia- even France basically collapsed.

After all, look at Latin American countries, they weren't exactly models of democracy or equality and in fact corruption and inequalities still persists. In fact, almost EVERY Latin American country from Mexico to Argentina has had a history of grave human rights violations. Just look at Guatemala, which is only two doors down from the US. This has only changed, really, in the last quarter of a century.

Half of Europe still has the scars of totalitarian rule and are still coming to terms with it. Look at Serbia, Romania, Georgia, etc- countries where restoration of the monarchy even enters the political debate as a result. All that means is that criticisms of today's monarchies are, IMHO, badly misplaced. This does not say that any given system of government is foolproof, or that any is indeed wrong, but there are sound historical arguments either way.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now

What do you mean by 'part of the British realm'?

The only thing we have that ties us to Britain these days is the Queen and history but Britain and Australia are otherwise completely independent countries. It is perfectly possible for Britain and Australia to take opposite sides in a war for instance - something which couldn't have happened 100 years ago.

 

[jemagre]

I think Australia will be apart of the British relm for a long time coming, it may become a republic but I don't see it happening for a long time.

I think most of the other monachies are safe.....for now

I would be suprised if Australia, Canada or New Zealand remained a part of the commonwealth after the current Queen passes away. They "seem" so detached from the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would be suprised if Australia, Canada or New Zealand remained a part of the commonwealth after the current Queen passes away. They "seem" so detached from the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters.

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.

 

[David V]

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.

A Commonwealth realm becoming a republic makes no difference to the practice of government. Malta, Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius are such- the President is theoretically elected by Parliament but is, like a governor-general, always an appointee of the government. While the Queen nominally appoints the governor-general and Australian state governors, the government of the day has the last word in practice. The lieutenant-governors in Canada are slightly different: they are technically subordinate to the GG, and are essentially employees (and constitutionally, agents instructed to act on behalf) of the federal government, salary paid for by them, etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

A Commonwealth realm becoming a republic makes no difference to the practice of government. Malta, Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius are such- the President is theoretically elected by Parliament but is, like a governor-general, always an appointee of the government. While the Queen nominally appoints the governor-general and Australian state governors, the government of the day has the last word in practice. The lieutenant-governors in Canada are slightly different: they are technically subordinate to the GG, and are essentially employees (and constitutionally, agents instructed to act on behalf) of the federal government, salary paid for by them, etc.

I have a question for you: How does any of this related to my question? Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

Jemarge said that she thought that Australia, Canada and New Zealand would leave the Commonwealth when the Queen dies and I simply asked her why she that that would happen.



The vast majority of countries of the Commonwealth (as I am sure you know as an Australian) are in fact republics already.

 

[David V]

I think I was more on the line that debate over the monarchy in Commonwealth Realms such as Australia is rather different to what it is elsewhere, since we (in Australia and other such realms) do not have "our own" monarchy.

 

[jemagre]

Why do you think that Canada, Australia or New Zealand would give up the free association of nations that had once been part of the British Empire when the present Queen dies? In what ways, for instance, is India associated with the UK and the monarchy in regards to government matters?

I know that here in Australia the move towards a republic has never included the idea that we should leave the Commonwealth.

Sorry I meant monarchy not Commonwealth. I am certain they would stay with that. My original idea was that these countries would cease to be monarchies because they do not seem to have strong ties with England in regards to the matter, and has you have pointed out already, seem to function as republics. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Keystone]

Two weeks ago I would not have said it, but it seems Jordan's monarchy may be dealing with issues of their own.


As for the Commonwealth Realms... Had I been Queen of England I would have sent my children to serve as Governor-Generals to commonwealth realms to possibly succeed as heads-of-state there. Maybe the Princess-Royal serving as Governor-General of Canada then as queen there, the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia then king there, and the Earl of Wessex as governor-general of New Zealand and then king there too. *shrug* as it is, It seems likely that after good queen Bess passes these realms may take a different path.