Search This Blog

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

On Parliaments

(I'll save my disgust at the behaviour of my fellow Irish Nationalists here in the north recently, for another post)

Ah what a blessed, ugly thing, that great and fantastic, necessary evil for running any modern nation of peoples; that towering, rotten leviathan that has the audacity to refer to itself as the State.

Oh wait no, that's the supreme court I was referring to, my apologies, this post is actually about Parliaments and how I despise them.

I will admit from this point on I am, for lack of a better term, an Absolute Monarchist, after my hatred for the audacious and preposterous idea and notion that the King would ever need to bow to parliament to perform the simplest of His duties won the war of my affections over the notion of a long lasting Nation.

I will be the first to admit that the Dail in Ireland is necessary as a legislative body for the herculean task of managing the laws of the land, but by God it should not rule the country.
My rage at Parliaments, or in America's case, the Senate and Congress, stems not only from my utter distrust of politicians for the simple vice that they are politicians, but also for the more practical reasons that every Parliament in almost every monarchy actively seeks to silence the voice of the monarch, be it Luxembourg, who's Sovereign is to have his signature revoked from the necessity of passing legislature because Grand Duke Henri dared to act upon his constitutional and just role as head of state to disagree and refuse to sign into law a piece of legislation he disagreed with, or let us go to Spain, who's evil socialist government is even now actively trying to rid Spain of its Monarchy, or how the coalition government in Britain is now pondering constitutional changes and at the same time absent mindedly forgetting they have a Queen. Or in Norway where the Monarchy is absolutely hamstrung by the ban on all noble titles by the parliament save for the monarch himself, endangering the Monarchy to an overnight destruction at any given moment in the future.

How I utterly despise the notion of parliamentarian ism, I am firmly and utterly convinced that any ounce of power given to the parliament will always form into a dagger in the back of the Monarchy, I make no apologies from my utter dislike of the idea that Parliaments should be trusted with any length of power in Constitutional Monarchies, for was it not in an emergency meeting with the French equivalent of an assembly, where His Majesty King Louis was ready to give in to some reforms that the revolution truly begin to take place? And was it not through the greed of the Parliament in England that the Stuarts had to flee from the land and brought that Arch-Heretic Cromwell to blight my own country with his own reign of terror in the name of liberty and Justice?

Parliaments are a necessary evil, and are only good when muzzled and leashed, filled with statesmen and not politicians. Otherwise they are a slow, wasteful pox eating at the organs of Nations.


  1. Ironically, in this case, direct democracy works to the Crown's advantage. Just look at Australia - of 44 referenda since 1906, only 8 have passed. The rest were all attempts to increase Commonwealth and Parliamentary power.

    You get a system like ours, and while your politicians and elite may hate you, there wouldn't be a damned thing they could do about it.

    One of life's little surprises.

  2. One small correction. America doesn't have a Senate and a Congress, it has only a Congress. The Congress sis broken down into two parts, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. But the Senate is a part of Congress itself, rather than a Separate body from it.

    Its a common mistake, but one that irritates.

    As to Parliaments, I think they work best if they have a Hereditary and (Properly, not politically) Appointed Aristocracy in the Upper House that is given real Power, and if the Order of Concept was reversed.

    Rather than all laws starting with the Representatives and moving to the Upper House for revision and approval, then to the Executive to sign, I think a King should make all laws, after consulting the Lords, pass on the Final Bill for the Approval of his Lords, and then bestow the Law to the House of Commons/Representatives to see if they approve of it.

    Reversing the order of how things are now.

    One last, Luxembourg was a travesty. Had an Elected President refused to sign the Bill, while there could still be an Uproar, because he was "Democratically Elected" he would retain power. its only because an uppity Royal Dared to show any willingness to use Power he's suppose to have, an unelected man whose suppose to be a mere figurehead, that the Wrath of Government rained down upon him.

    Politicians want power for themselves and their ilk, and never liked the Hindrance of a Royal, least of all a Moral one.

  3. Such is why the most beautiful words ever spoken in the history of the "Westminster style" system of government is, "Parliament is dissolved". I breathe a sigh of relief every time I hear it.

    The trend nowadays is also toward one branch of government dominating the others and that final branch delegating itself into oblivion. In Britain the commons take power from the Crown and the Lords and then hand it all over to the EU. In the US the Supreme Court suppresses the will of the people while the Congress cuts its own throat in favor of empowering the Presidential "czars". The only ones who can be sure of long life and prosperity nowadays are the bureaucrats, be they in DC, Beijing or Brussels.

  4. "I will admit from this point on I am, for lack of a better term, an Absolute Monarchist, after my hatred for the audacious and preposterous idea and notion that the King would ever need to bow to parliament to perform the simplest of His duties won the war of my affections over the notion of a long lasting Nation"

    Bravo! Isn't it strange how, once one reconciles oneself to, and fully embraces the principle of, fealty to one's monarch, how right it seems?

    I must admit, I suspect that the Irish nation's turn to republicanism and democratic agitation was an instinctive expedient felt necessary to preserve the nation from extinction by a foreign power that had already broken, dissolved and banished the greatest of our native aristocracy and was proceeding to do the same to all the Gael, noble or common.