Perhaps a bit of a farfetched Constitutional Monarchy idea...

I was thinking about alternate forms of government while in the bath last night and a rather strange idea occurred to me, and I understand if this is too farfetched but bear with me...

A system similar to a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy, for example, in which the Monarch is essentially a figurehead with little real power. I'm using the UK as an example here.

In order for the Monarchy to retain lasting legitimacy in such a system, someone decides the Monarch would automatically always be a candidate for Prime Minister, Chancellor, President, whatever. If the electorate (or, if we're using the example of the UK, the House of Commons) decides to elect the Monarch as Prime Minister for that term, the Monarch must go before the Parliament to essentially ask the people to form a government rather than the other way around when the Monarch is not elected.

So the Monarchy and the Prime Ministry is under one person for that term, but that person does not have the constitutional power to form a permanent absolute monarchy, change the term limits, abolish the parliament, etc.

By tradition if not by law (again as in the UK) the Monarch is obligated to allow the winning Prime Minister candidate to form a government, and likewise in the case of Monarchial election, the Parliament is traditionally obligated to unite to allow the Monarch to from a government through them.

I thought maybe this could be proposed after the Glorious Revolution.

Am I making sense?

I'm trying to think of other places where this could work, perhaps after the Unification of Germany the Kaiser would want to implement something like this.

Any ideas for alternate histories with a system like this? What to call it? Is it even plausible?

Thanks, guys!

p.s.

I've missed you all intensely.
 
Very interesting. I had an idea of a similar situation for the Pope in an alt Italian unification, wich might or might not happen in my Palaiologos TL. Basically there would be a Papal and Republican party, with the Republican PM candidate being a senator elected by a majrity of his peers, and the Pope being the permanent Papal party candidate. Reardless of the election, the Pope would maintain his status as head of the Catholic Church, including any international privelage that entails, but the Republicn candidate is just a citizen until he is elected.
 
I can't see how it would work without undermining the monarchy. The purpose of a constitutional monarch is the same that the elected presidents who don't do a great deal most of the time in places like Germany, Greece, Italy and Israel have - they are the constitutional fallback, they come into their own in a crisis, or emergency, and they are therefore ABOVE normal politics.

Logically I can't see how a monarch could be both the fall-back guy who is above politics and AT THE SAME TIME head of the government and very much in politics.

Now you could have a situation where the royal princes are involved, they used after all to be able to sit in and speak in the Lords (not sure when that ended; maybe with Victoria?).

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Sounds slightly too complicated.

Keep in mind, that might be the way I tried to communicate it...

Very interesting. I had an idea of a similar situation for the Pope in an alt Italian unification, wich might or might not happen in my Palaiologos TL. Basically there would be a Papal and Republican party, with the Republican PM candidate being a senator elected by a majrity of his peers, and the Pope being the permanent Papal party candidate. Reardless of the election, the Pope would maintain his status as head of the Catholic Church, including any international privelage that entails, but the Republicn candidate is just a citizen until he is elected.

That sounds almost identical to this except in a theocratic sort of way. I like it. I'm ready to read this TL now!

I can't see how it would work without undermining the monarchy. The purpose of a constitutional monarch is the same that the elected presidents who don't do a great deal most of the time in places like Germany, Greece, Italy and Israel have - they are the constitutional fallback, they come into their own in a crisis, or emergency, and they are therefore ABOVE normal politics.

Logically I can't see how a monarch could be both the fall-back guy who is above politics and AT THE SAME TIME head of the government and very much in politics.

Now you could have a situation where the royal princes are involved, they used after all to be able to sit in and speak in the Lords (not sure when that ended; maybe with Victoria?).

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, I suppose the Royal family could simply pick a royal member to nominate, i.e. the princes but the monarchy is their default setting.

Something of this nature could have interesting political ramifications for sure. Do you have any ideas or examples on how being nominally above politics and yet deeply involved in politics could effect the government/policy?

I was going on the assumption that out of respect for the parliament a monarch would traditionally not actively run in the election. They would be elected because they were the right temporary absolute monarch for the job, so to speak...
 
I was thinking about alternate forms of government while in the bath last night and a rather strange idea occurred to me, and I understand if this is too farfetched but bear with me...

A system similar to a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy, for example, in which the Monarch is essentially a figurehead with little real power. I'm using the UK as an example here.

In order for the Monarchy to retain lasting legitimacy in such a system, someone decides the Monarch would automatically always be a candidate for Prime Minister, Chancellor, President, whatever. If the electorate (or, if we're using the example of the UK, the House of Commons) decides to elect the Monarch as Prime Minister for that term, the Monarch must go before the Parliament to essentially ask the people to form a government rather than the other way around when the Monarch is not elected.

So the Monarchy and the Prime Ministry is under one person for that term, but that person does not have the constitutional power to form a permanent absolute monarchy, change the term limits, abolish the parliament, etc.

By tradition if not by law (again as in the UK) the Monarch is obligated to allow the winning Prime Minister candidate to form a government, and likewise in the case of Monarchial election, the Parliament is traditionally obligated to unite to allow the Monarch to from a government through them.

I thought maybe this could be proposed after the Glorious Revolution.

Am I making sense?

I'm trying to think of other places where this could work, perhaps after the Unification of Germany the Kaiser would want to implement something like this.

Any ideas for alternate histories with a system like this? What to call it? Is it even plausible?

Thanks, guys!

p.s.

I've missed you all intensely.

It's very complex for being a codified system, and the time and manner for the introduction of this is, I fear, implausible if not impossible.

The idea of a Prime Minister as a codified governmental office in 1688 would be an anachronism. "Prime Ministers" in the 17th century (like, say Cardinal Richelieu) were essentially just officers of the state who managed to engineer, manipulate and cajole themselves into the position were they were the guys de facto in charge. In fact, the function of being head of the cabinet and the government back in those days were expected to be executed by the King (or Queen) rather than a Prime Minister appointed by the king. I propose you check up Charles II's Cabal Ministry to get an idea about how this dynamics worked.

In fact, Prime Minister first became a codified title in Britain as late as the early 1900s as another name for the First Lord of the Treasury, prior to that you didn't actually need to be the First Lord of the Treasury to be the person considered to be the Prime Minister, you just needed to be the officer of the state who was the leader of the government. Lord Salisbury, for instance, manage to govern the British Empire ruthlessly efficiently as "Prime Minister", even though he wasn't First Lord of the Treasury later in his career. That job he left for his tepid nephew Arthur Balfour, while the Marquess himself officially served as Foreign Secretary.

While the idea of the king needing the popular consent of the people certainly wasn't new to the 17th century British, the idea that he would constantly have to stand in elections to be considered legitimate likely would baffle them. This because elections back in those days were... not as straightforward as they are today. When people voted for their MP, they weren't voting for what party they wanted to run the country, but who they thought best could represent the local interests at the national assembly. Those that could vote, that is, which was a remarkably small fraction of the population. And when they voted, they didn't really have the comfort of a secret ballot and a booth and all that. I believe it was Thande in some thread who observed that in some parts of the United Kingdom, the electorate would go to a field, and then they would gather themselves around their candidate. And the fellow with the biggest group around him would be considered the winner.

Furthermore, it was pretty much accepted (well into the late 1800s) that the House of Lords (then entirely hereditary) was a chamber of equal legitimacy and authority (if not actually higher authority) than the House of Commons.

The problem wasn't that democracy and popular mandate was an unheard-of idea (which it wasn't), but that it was a very poorly understood one, where questions as to its suitability, efficiency and legitimacy still were vigorously debated. This, and it wasn't quite well-experimented with either.

I like your idea, but your manner of introducing it I doubt are feasible. This is the kind of system that (at least in 17th century Britain) would have to evolve over time.
 
Top