The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   General Royal Discussion (
-   -   How many referendums monarchy vs. republic have been held in the History? (

espejor 09-22-2012 09:34 AM

How many referendums monarchy vs. republic have been held in the History?
Hi! I would like to know how many referendums monarchy vs. republic have been held in the History. I remember these:

-Bulgaria: With the country occupied by the Sovietic troops, a referendum was held and the monarchy abolished.

-Italy: The Italian monarchy was abolished in the 1946 referendum.

-Belgium: Was the question royale a referendum about the continuance of the Belgian dynasty or "only" about if the suitable king was Leopold III or Baudouin I?

-Greece: The 1974 referendum showed very clearly that the Greek people didn't want the Royal Family to return.

-Iran: Shortly after the Shah left Tehran, a public referendum abolished the monarchy with more of the 95% of the votes were favourable to the proclamation the Islamic Republic...

-Brazil: In the 90's, due to the request of a member of the parliament, was celebrated a referendum one century after the downfall of the Orleàns-Bragança.

-Cambodia: Was the 1993 plebiciste a referendum about the monarchy or simply a new constitution was promulgated?

-Albania: In 1997 the monarchical option won the popular plebiscite, but the governement manipulated the results. Officially, only one third of the Albanians voted for the return of king Leka.

-Australia: A plebiciste in 1999 was held and the 55% of the votes were pro-monarchy.

I don't know more examples of referendums held about monarchy vs. republic. And you?

Regards and thank you!

Andy T 06-22-2014 02:47 PM

Apart from the 1974 one, there have been quite a few referendums regarding the monarchy in Greece, most notably in 1920, 1924, 1935 and 1946. The vote went in favour of the monarchy in 1920, 1935 and 1946 and against in 1924 and 1974.

However, by proper democratic standards, most, if not all, of the above were highly suspect. In 1974, for example, the King wasn't even allowed into the country to campaign, being limited to a TV broadcast from abroad and in 1935, the vote was not even secret.

Duc_et_Pair 06-22-2014 03:52 PM

The Belgian referendum was not about a choice between Leopold III or Baudouin. It was King Leopold III himself (!) whom urged for a referendum, against the wish of the Government (!). The result was: 58% pro Leopold III and 42% against, but the regional diffferences were strong. In the whole of the Dutch speaking part, the King got a clear victory. In the French speaking part the King got a majority in the rural parts but in the more industrialized provinces of Liège and Namur he won no majority.

The King and the Government interpreted the result as a victory but strikes and riots broke out in the French speaking parts of the country. The situation went out of hand when during riots four demonstrators were killed by police bullets. The public opinion in the French speaking parts turned worse and worser. The King decided to abdicate in favour of his son Prince Baudouin.

So the referendum was not at all about monarchy vs republic. But about a return of the King in 1950. (From 1944 to 1950 the King's brother Prince Charles acted as Regent).

Admiral Horthy 06-22-2014 04:49 PM

Many of the anti-royalists votes, such as Italy, Bulgaria and Romania, like Albania, were fraudulent.

Iluvbertie 06-22-2014 05:46 PM

The 1999 vote in Australia was a referendum not a plebiscite - in Australia they are different things.

A referendum is a vote to change the constitution and that was what the vote was in 1999.

A plebiscite is to gauge the public's support for an issue - such as the conscription issues in 1916 and 1917 (which are erroneously referred to in textbooks etc as referenda but they weren't binding on the government and so were plebiscites).

Chubb Fuddler 07-09-2014 05:30 AM

I've been looking into referendums of the last century to see how many can be classed as a "free and fair" vote in a stable political climate. If you exclude the ones that happened in the wake of destabilising situations such as war and revolution, it looks like a referendum is the least effective way to abolish a monarchy. In the last hundred years approximately 100 monarchies (national and sub-national) disappeared, most of them without even the pretence of electoral confirmation.

The 1960 South African referendum was not fair, as only whites were allowed to vote. Greece 1974 seems to comes close to being "free and fair", but it was not a secure political climate. So it looks like the Australian referendum of 1999 was about the only one to be held in a stable political climate, after the due process of a constitutional convention, and it was defeated.

Many of the world's monarchies are not politically stable, and, as history shows, nothing is more dangerous to a monarchy than war, revolution or a military coup (even if the monarchy is not the target of the unrest). They should not take anything for granted. But what about the likelihood of Europe's monarchies (and a few others like Japan) ever facing the boot? For these most democratic of nations, surely a referendum is the only way to relieve themselves of the services of their ruling family? Without a juicy scandal to kick start things, is a theoretical debate about an hereditary or elected head of state going to inspire a movement strong enough to bring on a referendum?

Chubb Fuddler 07-09-2014 07:14 AM

Here's another one for the free and fair category, and, again, it was defeated. Tuvalu 2008. Less than 25% of enrolled voters made an effort to cast a vote. Does indifference ultimately help maintain the status quo? If so, it could also be a major stumbling block for restoration movements.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises