Another supposed virtue of constitutional monarchy is that it discourages a presidential system, but even here, consider Italy which in 1922 moved from a constitutional democracy into a fascist dictatorship.
Also, land acknowledgements are extremely cringe & horrible. And are they really driven by the indigenous populations - like, say the post-war civil rights movement was driven by African-Americans - or by activists of whatever race?
When I read Robert Bellah's Religion in Human Evolution, it struck me that the best form of government was the Polynesian monarchies in which the King had complete divine majesty and no actual powers at all.
Whether a constitutional monarchy works depends on how you define it working. England's unique power balance and resulting constitutional monarchy played a large role in its development, subsequent industrial revolution, and economic success. Other countries may have tried to emulate this "success formula," but lacked other features that allowed for England's development (legal tradition, powerful localities, culture, Christian-influenced psychology). A constitutional monarchy in the wrong circumstances may lead to a weak state and a power vacuum.
Historically, power-sharing arrangements led to internal conflicts or a weak state. A status-quo protecting absolute monarchy was the only stable type of government. But it's only some form of a liberal democracy that has a proven track record of stable growth.
Especially but not only with regard to the British monarchy, I'm reminded of Bagehot (the real Walter, not the pseudonymous columnist for the Economist) distinguishing in 1867 between the dignified and efficient parts of the British constitution. That seems to be part of what works in generally-working parliamentary republics like Ireland, post-WW2 Germany, Finland, etc. (although that last in particular leaves the president some "efficient" head of govt functions in foreign policy that would be left to the the cabinet in most parliamentary democracies). I'm not sure if Israel counts as a "generally-working parliamentary republic", although the President of Israel fits Bagehot's "dignified".
I would think that the canonical example of a reasonably functioning constitutional monarchy in the Arab world would be Morocco, no? Also (Muslim but not Arab) the rotating monarchy in Malaysia.
yeah, agree, it's selection bias.
Another supposed virtue of constitutional monarchy is that it discourages a presidential system, but even here, consider Italy which in 1922 moved from a constitutional democracy into a fascist dictatorship.
Also, land acknowledgements are extremely cringe & horrible. And are they really driven by the indigenous populations - like, say the post-war civil rights movement was driven by African-Americans - or by activists of whatever race?
When I read Robert Bellah's Religion in Human Evolution, it struck me that the best form of government was the Polynesian monarchies in which the King had complete divine majesty and no actual powers at all.
Whether a constitutional monarchy works depends on how you define it working. England's unique power balance and resulting constitutional monarchy played a large role in its development, subsequent industrial revolution, and economic success. Other countries may have tried to emulate this "success formula," but lacked other features that allowed for England's development (legal tradition, powerful localities, culture, Christian-influenced psychology). A constitutional monarchy in the wrong circumstances may lead to a weak state and a power vacuum.
Historically, power-sharing arrangements led to internal conflicts or a weak state. A status-quo protecting absolute monarchy was the only stable type of government. But it's only some form of a liberal democracy that has a proven track record of stable growth.
Especially but not only with regard to the British monarchy, I'm reminded of Bagehot (the real Walter, not the pseudonymous columnist for the Economist) distinguishing in 1867 between the dignified and efficient parts of the British constitution. That seems to be part of what works in generally-working parliamentary republics like Ireland, post-WW2 Germany, Finland, etc. (although that last in particular leaves the president some "efficient" head of govt functions in foreign policy that would be left to the the cabinet in most parliamentary democracies). I'm not sure if Israel counts as a "generally-working parliamentary republic", although the President of Israel fits Bagehot's "dignified".
I would think that the canonical example of a reasonably functioning constitutional monarchy in the Arab world would be Morocco, no? Also (Muslim but not Arab) the rotating monarchy in Malaysia.