What I have to say now will not attempt to offer any great insight into the ongoing election campaign for the next President of France- though hopefully complements current discussions and events.
Whilst spending a recent weekend in Paris (which, incidentally, was the weekend of the first round of the 2017 presidential election), I had the same feeling as when I last visited the city- as well as when I visited Vienna last year. Beautiful cities though they are, I feel that there is a sad disparity between the images these cities portray of themselves (and their countries generally) versus the reality. Perhaps it is because I am a British monarchist that I am biased, but I can't help thinking that London's landmarks represent a continuous story of the UK's history and identity, with two of the most iconic buildings, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, reflecting our centuries-old attachment to democracy and constitutional monarchy. In contrast, Paris' most iconic buildings tend to be grand palaces or cathedrals, which imply that monarchy and Catholicism are strong parts of France's identity. In reality of course, France officially endorses republicanism and secularism- and has done for the past century or so. It therefore feels a bit hollow to me that buildings so important to what people associate with France are not really relevant to what the country is today; and that, to an extent, the way you could once trace the country's ongoing story through its architecture and most famous buildings has stopped.
Adolphe Thiers once famously said the reason behind the establishment of a French republic was that it "divides us least"- a governmental system set-up therefore not out of strong convictions, but as a compromise. Adolphe Thiers would be one of the first ever Presidents of France, yet was himself a monarchist sympathiser. The Third French Republic was often seen as a provisional form of government for France, following the country's defeat in 1871 in the Franco-Prussian War, yet has been upheld (albeit with amendments along the way) ever since. Even France's strongest symbol, the Eiffel Tower, unveiled in the early days of the Third French Republic, was due to be a temporary structure only, and intended to be removed a couple of decades later- yet has likewise lasted ever since.
I wonder if there is any link between the weak convictions underpinning modern France, formed by a provisional republic and represented by a temporary structure, and the insecurities that have plagued France's national identity since the compromise republic was established back in 1871...
Saturday, 29 April 2017
Sunday, 12 March 2017
History repeating itself remarkably: England 1649-1689, France 1789-1830
It is a cliché that history repeats itself, but I only recently realised how remarkably true this can be.
Consider the following:
A King is executed, apparently to further the cause of greater liberty. However, emerging from this apparent liberation is a pseudo military dictatorship. After approximately a decade, this somewhat regal dictatorship comes to an end, encouraging a desire to turn back the clock (at least to an extent). And so, the monarchy is restored, installing a King (who ironically shares his name with the previously executed monarch).
Stability seems to be restored, although lingering suspicions of the restored monarchy remain. These concerns appear to be justified when the restored king dies, and is succeeded by his more conservative brother. This new reactionary King proves too much, apparently ignoring the social and political shifts in the country of recent years, leading to a revolution that deposes the King and brings a more liberal relative to the throne in his place.
The above could equally apply to England from 1649 to 1689 and France 1789-1830. Both chains of events also took approximately 40 years...
In England, King Charles I was executed following the English Civil War, and was replaced by Oliver Cromwell as head of state. A member of parliament who had fought ostensibly to curb royal power, Cromwell soon became Lord Protector, a King in all but name, with dictatorial powers. When he died, his son Richard briefly took his place, before the English monarchy was restored in 1660 under King Charles I's son, King Charles II. When King Charles II died, his brother became King James II. However, the threat of an autocratic and Catholic King seemed too much to the Protestant English parliament, which encouraged his remarkably bloodless deposition in the Glorious Revolution and brought his nephew (and son-in-law) to the throne as King William III, reigning as co-monarch with his wife and cousin Queen Mary II.
Then, 100 years later, France had her iconic French Revolution, which soon escalated and resulted in the execution of King Louis XVI and the installation of a republic. Despite having apparently noble foundations, of "liberty, equality and fraternity", the republic proved anarchic and provoked war with the Great Powers of Europe. Shifting power in France led to a brief peace while Napoleon Bonaparte, a Corsican general, rose through the political ranks and ultimately made himself Emperor of the French. Emperor Napoleon managed to bring much of Europe into his sphere of influence, through annexation to the First French Empire, indirectly through the installation of family members or other allies as new heads of state of numerous European states, or concluding alliances and peace treaties with existing leaders. However, over the following years, relentless British opposition, coupled with growing unrest and resentment towards French dominance in Continental Europe, led to Napoleon's deposition and defeat, and replacement with King Louis XVIII- brother of the late King Louis XVI. While King Louis XVIII had (albeit begrudgingly) been accommodating of liberal concessions, his more conservative brother and successor, King Charles X, was much less so, culminating in the 1830 revolution that led to his abdication in favour of his liberal cousin, the new King Louis Philippe of the French.
The difference is that, whilst constitutional monarchy would be strengthened over the decades in England, and ultimately Great Britain, in France King Louis Philippe was deposed by a further revolution, and soon replaced by the more authoritarian Emperor Napoleon III. When he was forced to abdicate due to a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, it seemed likely Napoleon III would be succeeded by a King Henri V- grandson of King Charles X. However, Henri's relentless opposition to the Tricolour flag remaining the national flag (an indication of his unwillingness to embrace modernity in France) led to the temporary Third Republic which, aside from some amendments, endures in France to this day.
Consider the following:
A King is executed, apparently to further the cause of greater liberty. However, emerging from this apparent liberation is a pseudo military dictatorship. After approximately a decade, this somewhat regal dictatorship comes to an end, encouraging a desire to turn back the clock (at least to an extent). And so, the monarchy is restored, installing a King (who ironically shares his name with the previously executed monarch).
Stability seems to be restored, although lingering suspicions of the restored monarchy remain. These concerns appear to be justified when the restored king dies, and is succeeded by his more conservative brother. This new reactionary King proves too much, apparently ignoring the social and political shifts in the country of recent years, leading to a revolution that deposes the King and brings a more liberal relative to the throne in his place.
The above could equally apply to England from 1649 to 1689 and France 1789-1830. Both chains of events also took approximately 40 years...
In England, King Charles I was executed following the English Civil War, and was replaced by Oliver Cromwell as head of state. A member of parliament who had fought ostensibly to curb royal power, Cromwell soon became Lord Protector, a King in all but name, with dictatorial powers. When he died, his son Richard briefly took his place, before the English monarchy was restored in 1660 under King Charles I's son, King Charles II. When King Charles II died, his brother became King James II. However, the threat of an autocratic and Catholic King seemed too much to the Protestant English parliament, which encouraged his remarkably bloodless deposition in the Glorious Revolution and brought his nephew (and son-in-law) to the throne as King William III, reigning as co-monarch with his wife and cousin Queen Mary II.
Then, 100 years later, France had her iconic French Revolution, which soon escalated and resulted in the execution of King Louis XVI and the installation of a republic. Despite having apparently noble foundations, of "liberty, equality and fraternity", the republic proved anarchic and provoked war with the Great Powers of Europe. Shifting power in France led to a brief peace while Napoleon Bonaparte, a Corsican general, rose through the political ranks and ultimately made himself Emperor of the French. Emperor Napoleon managed to bring much of Europe into his sphere of influence, through annexation to the First French Empire, indirectly through the installation of family members or other allies as new heads of state of numerous European states, or concluding alliances and peace treaties with existing leaders. However, over the following years, relentless British opposition, coupled with growing unrest and resentment towards French dominance in Continental Europe, led to Napoleon's deposition and defeat, and replacement with King Louis XVIII- brother of the late King Louis XVI. While King Louis XVIII had (albeit begrudgingly) been accommodating of liberal concessions, his more conservative brother and successor, King Charles X, was much less so, culminating in the 1830 revolution that led to his abdication in favour of his liberal cousin, the new King Louis Philippe of the French.
The difference is that, whilst constitutional monarchy would be strengthened over the decades in England, and ultimately Great Britain, in France King Louis Philippe was deposed by a further revolution, and soon replaced by the more authoritarian Emperor Napoleon III. When he was forced to abdicate due to a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, it seemed likely Napoleon III would be succeeded by a King Henri V- grandson of King Charles X. However, Henri's relentless opposition to the Tricolour flag remaining the national flag (an indication of his unwillingness to embrace modernity in France) led to the temporary Third Republic which, aside from some amendments, endures in France to this day.
Saturday, 11 February 2017
Thoughts on the US President and checks and balances
I remember when I studied politics, and covered American politics, that an important characteristic of their system is checks and balances: that the President, Congress and the courts are able to hinder and help each other pass laws and make decisions. The idea behind this structure being that no single institution becomes too powerful and can jeopardise democracy, with a great emphasis on the President not being able to impose their will unchecked on the USA.
The positives of this system are clear, and indeed do appear to be very democratic. However, it can be controversial too when there is a stand-off between these institutions. We can see this as both the current President, President Trump, and his predecessor, President Obama, have faced challenges (and, in the case of the former, continues to do so) as a consequence of these checks and balances.
As we have seen, there have been several instances of people in the US going on killing sprees with guns, murdering many innocent people. In recognition of this, and feeling that access to guns is a big factor in why these massacres occur (a view I agree with: being British, although I feel there is a lot of common ground between my country and the US in terms of outlook and values, there seems to generally be a divide on the perception of guns, and I've always struggled to understand the pro-gun perspective that many Americans have), President Obama tried to restrict access to arms, only for Congress to undermine and hinder his efforts, and often make him appear impotent in the face of these tragic events.
Meanwhile, at present, President Trump is having an ongoing conflict with the courts over whether his efforts to place heavy restrictions on the ability of people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to go to the USA are lawful, with his executive order being undermined by the courts, and President Trump now seemingly considering his next move in order to reinstate these restrictions. Controversial though this executive order is, I can sympathise with concerns over Islamist terrorism (I understand that, one the one hand, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists, while on the other, it seems that virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Therefore, President Trump's actions are affecting many innocent Muslims just because of their religion- but it is not a move completely lacking in reason and carried out with malice), and also recognise that this act reflects the promises President Trump made during his electoral campaign.
As I said, I respect the democratic credentials of the system of checks and balances, but feel that they can undermine the President when attempting to carry out decisions effectively and decisively- including the promises that their elections were based upon. This is a difficult topic, but I personally feel some relief that the British Prime Minister is generally more able to make swift decisions and pass laws without so many hindrances, allowing what is my view generally more effective leadership, whilst the high profile of the US President and their election campaigns can lead to building up of great hopes- and subsequent great disappointment, as their ability to bring about change is prolonged or prevented.
The positives of this system are clear, and indeed do appear to be very democratic. However, it can be controversial too when there is a stand-off between these institutions. We can see this as both the current President, President Trump, and his predecessor, President Obama, have faced challenges (and, in the case of the former, continues to do so) as a consequence of these checks and balances.
As we have seen, there have been several instances of people in the US going on killing sprees with guns, murdering many innocent people. In recognition of this, and feeling that access to guns is a big factor in why these massacres occur (a view I agree with: being British, although I feel there is a lot of common ground between my country and the US in terms of outlook and values, there seems to generally be a divide on the perception of guns, and I've always struggled to understand the pro-gun perspective that many Americans have), President Obama tried to restrict access to arms, only for Congress to undermine and hinder his efforts, and often make him appear impotent in the face of these tragic events.
Meanwhile, at present, President Trump is having an ongoing conflict with the courts over whether his efforts to place heavy restrictions on the ability of people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to go to the USA are lawful, with his executive order being undermined by the courts, and President Trump now seemingly considering his next move in order to reinstate these restrictions. Controversial though this executive order is, I can sympathise with concerns over Islamist terrorism (I understand that, one the one hand, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists, while on the other, it seems that virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Therefore, President Trump's actions are affecting many innocent Muslims just because of their religion- but it is not a move completely lacking in reason and carried out with malice), and also recognise that this act reflects the promises President Trump made during his electoral campaign.
As I said, I respect the democratic credentials of the system of checks and balances, but feel that they can undermine the President when attempting to carry out decisions effectively and decisively- including the promises that their elections were based upon. This is a difficult topic, but I personally feel some relief that the British Prime Minister is generally more able to make swift decisions and pass laws without so many hindrances, allowing what is my view generally more effective leadership, whilst the high profile of the US President and their election campaigns can lead to building up of great hopes- and subsequent great disappointment, as their ability to bring about change is prolonged or prevented.
Saturday, 28 January 2017
The Courts: Brexit and Strikes
Knowing very little about the law (and having little active interest in the details of it), I rarely express opinions on it. However, two current issues in Britain have brought the legal system to my attention:
The Courts and Brexit
The Supreme Court case on whether the approval of the British parliament is required to begin the process of the UK leaving the European Union has recently ended, deciding that Parliament's consent is required.
Many Brexiteers have complained about this case and its outcome, whilst Remainers have deemed these Brexiteers hypocrites: why would the Brexiteers complain about consultation with the two British institutions of the courts and parliament, when the empowerment of these bodies (in relation to European institutions) was used as an argument for Brexit in the first place? I can see that this does indeed seem hypocritical, and in theory this is the correct decision. In practice however, there are reasonable concerns, given that these institutions are believed to be pro-EU and anti-Brexit, with Brexiteers fearing that parliament and the courts seek to undermine and dilute Brexit against the will of the majority who voted for Brexit. Whilst I have faith in the courts' neutrality, it is clear that a majority of MPs favoured continued EU membership- at odds with the majority of voters in the referendum. It would therefore seem that fears of MPs undermining Brexit are justified, though many MPs are announcing (correctly, in my view) that they are willing to put their own views on Brexit aside to respect the democratic decision by a majority to leave the EU.
In any case I take the view that, if Parliament were to undermine Brexit, they would encourage even broader support for the UK Independence Party nationwide in order to uphold the public's decision on Brexit. I am therefore quietly confident that Brexit will be followed through effectively, and that attempts to undermine or delay this process would be self-defeating.
As proponents of the anti-establishment decision, Brexiteers face a great battle- one against many rich and powerful people, from business leaders to politicians, who can wield more influence than many of those who voted Brexit, who seemingly came from the more modest, less influential and activist people (in other words, ordinary, working people) who can't leverage the same resources. Brexit marked an occasion when the often silent majority were given a voice, in many cases reflecting concerns with the pressure on infrastructure and integrating communties that comes with the mass migration the UK has experienced over recent decades. The fact that people from various races (so not exclusively white) voted for Brexit demonstrated that these pressures on housing, healthcare, education, etc are not fantasy issues of ignorant white racists, as many patronising Remainers would say (I've heard several well-helled Remainers lament that Brexit is "so unnecessary"), but genuine concerns that affect many members of the public in densely-populated areas that can't afford to insulate themselves from the problems of an over-stretched infrastructure with private education and healthcare. Don't get me wrong, I by no means begrudge people having wealth and success (it should, of course, be encouraged), but I do object to complacent attitudes and a lack of sympathy when it comes to the problems of the masses that are dismissed as ignorance.
Some people are indeed guilty of ignorance...
The Courts and the Strikes
I have long thought that strikes are morally wrong. I'm sympathetic to workers' demands being listened to and the positive role of trade unions (though there should be appreciation that not all of us work in unionised industries, and are faced with the choice of individual negotiaton with employers or simply having to find another job), but strikes tend to hit the innocent public hardest, and prioritises the interests of one group of people- regardless of the impact it has on others who have done nothing wrong. A clear and current case is with Southern Rail, operating trains from the county of Surrey to London. Commuters using this line have been faced with consistently poor service- partly down to relentless strikes. Some say that strikes should be banned- full stop. However, I don't think that workers' concerns should be dismissed out-of-hand, and a fairer approach would be if the two sides (so in this case, Southern Rail and the trade unions) were obliged to bring their concerns to court, because it is in the national interest that the conflict is resolved, and the courts should be trusted to decide on a fair response based on the arguments of both sides. This would hopefully bring a fair and agreeable outcome quite swiftly and, crucially, avoid drawing the public into a conflict that has nothing to do with them.
The Courts and Brexit
The Supreme Court case on whether the approval of the British parliament is required to begin the process of the UK leaving the European Union has recently ended, deciding that Parliament's consent is required.
Many Brexiteers have complained about this case and its outcome, whilst Remainers have deemed these Brexiteers hypocrites: why would the Brexiteers complain about consultation with the two British institutions of the courts and parliament, when the empowerment of these bodies (in relation to European institutions) was used as an argument for Brexit in the first place? I can see that this does indeed seem hypocritical, and in theory this is the correct decision. In practice however, there are reasonable concerns, given that these institutions are believed to be pro-EU and anti-Brexit, with Brexiteers fearing that parliament and the courts seek to undermine and dilute Brexit against the will of the majority who voted for Brexit. Whilst I have faith in the courts' neutrality, it is clear that a majority of MPs favoured continued EU membership- at odds with the majority of voters in the referendum. It would therefore seem that fears of MPs undermining Brexit are justified, though many MPs are announcing (correctly, in my view) that they are willing to put their own views on Brexit aside to respect the democratic decision by a majority to leave the EU.
In any case I take the view that, if Parliament were to undermine Brexit, they would encourage even broader support for the UK Independence Party nationwide in order to uphold the public's decision on Brexit. I am therefore quietly confident that Brexit will be followed through effectively, and that attempts to undermine or delay this process would be self-defeating.
As proponents of the anti-establishment decision, Brexiteers face a great battle- one against many rich and powerful people, from business leaders to politicians, who can wield more influence than many of those who voted Brexit, who seemingly came from the more modest, less influential and activist people (in other words, ordinary, working people) who can't leverage the same resources. Brexit marked an occasion when the often silent majority were given a voice, in many cases reflecting concerns with the pressure on infrastructure and integrating communties that comes with the mass migration the UK has experienced over recent decades. The fact that people from various races (so not exclusively white) voted for Brexit demonstrated that these pressures on housing, healthcare, education, etc are not fantasy issues of ignorant white racists, as many patronising Remainers would say (I've heard several well-helled Remainers lament that Brexit is "so unnecessary"), but genuine concerns that affect many members of the public in densely-populated areas that can't afford to insulate themselves from the problems of an over-stretched infrastructure with private education and healthcare. Don't get me wrong, I by no means begrudge people having wealth and success (it should, of course, be encouraged), but I do object to complacent attitudes and a lack of sympathy when it comes to the problems of the masses that are dismissed as ignorance.
Some people are indeed guilty of ignorance...
The Courts and the Strikes
I have long thought that strikes are morally wrong. I'm sympathetic to workers' demands being listened to and the positive role of trade unions (though there should be appreciation that not all of us work in unionised industries, and are faced with the choice of individual negotiaton with employers or simply having to find another job), but strikes tend to hit the innocent public hardest, and prioritises the interests of one group of people- regardless of the impact it has on others who have done nothing wrong. A clear and current case is with Southern Rail, operating trains from the county of Surrey to London. Commuters using this line have been faced with consistently poor service- partly down to relentless strikes. Some say that strikes should be banned- full stop. However, I don't think that workers' concerns should be dismissed out-of-hand, and a fairer approach would be if the two sides (so in this case, Southern Rail and the trade unions) were obliged to bring their concerns to court, because it is in the national interest that the conflict is resolved, and the courts should be trusted to decide on a fair response based on the arguments of both sides. This would hopefully bring a fair and agreeable outcome quite swiftly and, crucially, avoid drawing the public into a conflict that has nothing to do with them.
Monday, 2 January 2017
Royal Round-up: 2016
The countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:
Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.
Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.
2016
- The prospective King Leka II of Albania marries Elia Zaharia, an Albanian actress and singer.
- The former King Constantine II of Greece asserts his claim to the Greek throne in an interview with a Greek TV programme, saying "I am not the ex King Konstantine, I am the King Konstantine".
- The former Queen Anne of Romania dies aged 92.
Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.
Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.
2016
- The prospective King Leka II of Albania marries Elia Zaharia, an Albanian actress and singer.
- The former King Constantine II of Greece asserts his claim to the Greek throne in an interview with a Greek TV programme, saying "I am not the ex King Konstantine, I am the King Konstantine".
- The former Queen Anne of Romania dies aged 92.
- Queen Letizia of Spain, and her consort King Felipe VI of Spain, are
drawn into a scandal as text messages are revealed between the Queen and a
businessman, encouraging accusations of corruption.
- The
death of the King of Thailand makes Queen
Elizabeth II of Great Britain & Northern Ireland the
world’s longest current ruling head of state and reigning monarch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)