Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Republic, your views on being one?

Options
  • 15-07-2009 5:54am
    #1
    Affable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭


    How does it effect the mentality? I used to be a firm anti-authoritarian and republican, now I'm not sure if it doesn't leave one feeling slightly empty to have no monarchy, and total equality. Who else you gonna treat as an authority? Politicians? Maybe arbitrariness is not such a bad thing.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    apoch632
    Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭apoch632


    I wish we were actually a republic along the French or American lines where the President has actual power when it comes to national policy


  • Options
    #3
    Affable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭Affable


    apoch632 wrote: »
    I wish we were actually a republic along the French or American lines where the President has actual power when it comes to national policy

    Sure. But how do you think it effects the mentality, to be a citizen not a subject, as it were?


  • Options
    #4
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    It really shouldnt tbh, its one of those things people put on a pedestal and take pride in just to feel good.

    Consider that China is a Peoples Republic and that the USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    It, like 'democracy', is a bandied around term that is applied to anything and everything with some kind of grammatical goal in mind.


  • Options
    #5
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,846 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Affable wrote: »
    How does it effect the mentality? I used to be a firm anti-authoritarian and republican, now I'm not sure if it doesn't leave one feeling slightly empty to have no monarchy, and total equality. Who else you gonna treat as an authority? Politicians? Maybe arbitrariness is not such a bad thing.
    I really fear for the future of mankind sometimes :mad:

    Seriously, how are our lives "slightly empty" by not being subordinate to an antiquated monarchy? As a general rule, the kind of people who want authority are the kind of people who shouldn't have it. We're lucky enough to not live in a craphole like China or the Islamic World, and we should be trying to preserve and expand our freedoms instead of going in those directions.


  • Options
    #6
    8-10
    Registered Users Posts: 13,360 ✭✭✭✭8-10


    Affable wrote: »
    Who else you gonna treat as an authority?

    God obviously. Humans should be equal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    It might be that Irish people do not have a solid sense of being citizens in a republic. The key point is that sovereignty vests in the people. To me, that means that elected politicians are answerable to us.

    Yet is is part of our political culture that people approach their representatives as supplicants, something that our politicians encourage through their way of doing business. I should not need the services of a TD to vindicate my rights in relation to the state, and I am pleased to say that I never used one. On the other hand, I have argued the toss with public representatives about policy. That's my way of making politicians answerable to this one member of the public.


  • Options
    #8
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SeanW wrote: »
    Seriously, how are our lives "slightly empty" by not being subordinate to an antiquated monarchy? As a general rule, the kind of people who want authority are the kind of people who shouldn't have it.
    Monarchs, as a rule, are saddled with the job rather than aspiring to it.

    Because our nearest monarchy is the UK, we tend to allow our view of monarchy to be coloured by (a) the fact that we have relatively recently gained independence from that monarchy, and (b) the intensely conflicted love-hate relationship the people of the UK have with their royal family.

    Contrast (for example) Denmark, where there's almost no republican sentiment whatsoever, and the royal family are viewed with almost universal affection.
    We're lucky enough to not live in a craphole like China...
    Which is, ironically, a republic.


  • Options
    #9
    Tristram
    Registered Users Posts: 3,590 ✭✭✭Tristram


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Yet is is part of our political culture that people approach their representatives as supplicants...

    An important point in relation to this topic methinks.


  • Options
    #10
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭Deedsie


    Not one human should have a divine right to rule another.

    We are all equal in a republic, granted some are more equal than others. But the idea of bring a monarch back to the Republic would make me sick.

    I take pride in Irelands independence and our ancestors struggle to achieve the Republic. If you must look to someone in an exalted position lots of Irish people are interested in the British royal family.

    President McAleese will do me though.


  • Options
    #11
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Deedsie wrote: »
    We are all equal in a republic

    But as myself and oscarBravo said China is also a republic. Being a republic means absolutely nothing in this regard. Its a term that people use to try and give the impression of freedom and independence, but in reality in means nothing. Even the "republic" of North Korea practices some from of head of state inheritance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    turgon wrote: »
    ... Being a republic means absolutely nothing in this regard...

    Not quite: calling a political entity a republic is not a guarantee that it is one.


  • Options
    #13
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Not quite: calling a political entity a republic is not a guarantee that it is one.

    True, but would it be fair to say it has become so muddled that the term is nearly redundant?


  • Options
    #14
    solice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭solice


    After watching season 1 of the Tudors over the last couple of days, thank god we dont have a monarchy!

    Republic means different things in different parts of the world, for me, I feel completly fulfilled that I live in the Irish Republic, all citizens are equal*, all citizens are held accountable*, nobody has automatic privilleges but everybody has automatic rights. The idea that there is a family or a person who has a "God given right" to a special place in society scares me. But there is a romantic image associated with it which I can appreciate.

    *As a society we are still working on this bit but it is a work in progress


  • Options
    #15
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    solice wrote: »
    I feel completly fulfilled that I live in the Irish Republic, all citizens are equal*, all citizens are held accountable*, nobody has automatic privilleges but everybody has automatic rights.

    But is that due to fact we are a republic, or rather because we are a liberal democracy with a proper enough constitution?


  • Options
    #16
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I don't see what being a republic has to do with it fulfilment or anything else to do with out daily lives to be honest.

    The elected government is where the power sits and as long as that government operates in a reasonable and competant manner then the over riding authority, be it a monarch or a President, is largely irrelevant, unless that person has real power, as in France and the US.

    There is a lot said about the British monarchy, but in reality the Queen has a lot less power than, say, the President of the US.

    Most monarchies, especially in europe, know now that their position is one of privilage and as such do not abuse it. Any monarch who decided to thw their weight around and act against public opinion would soon have their wings clipped.


  • Options
    #17
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    turgon wrote: »
    True, but would it be fair to say it has become so muddled that the term is nearly redundant?

    Yes, as the word is used in casual conversation, and again yes as the word is used by many to make distorted claims. About the only time the word Republic is useful is in discussions like this, when people are considering how a political unit is structured.

    Of course, we in Ireland have an extra complication with the use of the term Republican.


  • Options
    #18
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #19
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Personally, I won't "look up" to someone unless they've earned it.

    I'll treat everyone as an equal until I've determined whether they deserve more or less respect, through their actions and attitude.

    Stupid titles granted on the whim of a Queen or whoever (such as "Sir") are bull****. Fawning over crap politicians likewise.

    Titles earned, or worked for (and this includes a Garda or whoever, who has training and does a job) fair enough.....likewise a security guy or whoever; if they're just "doing their job" and are there for a reason that has an overall purpose, then they'll get a level of respect from me based on working towards or earning their position, and it would take a really crap attitude or "unreasonableness" on their part before I'd question that.

    But just because someone in authority scored and shagged someone and had a kid doesn't make that kid automatically entitled to anything - they have to earn it the same as anyone else.

    We grew up on fairy-tales of princes and princesses, but now I view that as a load of elitist crap.


  • Options
    #20
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    all the republic has done ,is to replace monarchy with the pope,and thats just not my opinion.


  • Options
    #21
    JonathanAnon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭JonathanAnon


    Any system could work, the problem is the people you get to run them.

    Hitler, for example did a lot of good things for the German ecomony but had a few minor flaws (in that he liked to invade bigger countries, and liked to kill races that didn take his fancy). National Socialism could have been positive, but the people who ran it had serious psychological problems.

    Communism, usually judged by Stalin or China. But Stalin killed half of his own army and anybody who opposed him during the 1930s which is why they were so badly prepared before the war. Again, the man running the system was a nutter.

    A Monarchy could also work, but you will live or die by the flaws of the king.

    So I dont think that there's anything wrong with each of the systems, it is the people who run it that cause the problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    So I dont think that there's anything wrong with each of the systems, it is the people who run it that cause the problems.

    The problem is such systems spawn such people. Once they get absolute power they begin to abuse it.


  • Options
    #23
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    getz wrote: »
    all the republic has done ,is to replace monarchy with the pope,and thats just not my opinion.

    Here we go.:rolleyes:

    I don't see anyone in this country listening to the pope anymore. He's becoming as irrelevant to the world as the queen is to the UK.

    As for the Republic i think of all the possible regimes it is the best especially to the common man/woman on the street as it is a sytem that allows their voice to be heard.


  • Options
    #24
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    We are not a republic. We have some trappings of a republic but they are all deliberately powerless - we are a representitive democracy, tending more to liberal democracy than illiberal.

    Large parts of the country, particularly outside of Dublin are feudal democracies, with particular political clans claiming the allegiance of voters in return for favours in a pretty clear cut exchange.


  • Options
    #25
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    turgon wrote: »
    The problem is such systems spawn such people. Once they get absolute power they begin to abuse it.

    Ireland is a republic with a massively democratic system (too democratic I think) and yet it has a party that has abused its position.

    "..It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, other than all those already tried" (Or something like that)


  • Options
    #26
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    I think the fact that Ireland is called a republic does not make a whole lot of difference, the president of Ireland is largely symbolic and her powers are not much greater than that of the Queen, the main difference is that the president is elected. From the mindset of the people I guess you could be equally nationalistic about a republic as you could about a monarchy.


  • Options
    #27
    mikemac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,986 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    Glad to be a citizen rather a subject.

    Though I'm not sure why some Irish cities had Lord Mayors. :confused:


  • Options
    #28
    Affable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭Affable


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The Queen being head of state and basically having bugger all power, but being an 'arbitrary' representative and tradition that inspires interest, and support, is hardly comparable to people succumbing to the rule of Stalin. Come now.


  • Options
    #29
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Affable wrote: »
    The Queen being head of state and basically having bugger all power, but being an 'arbitrary' representative and tradition that inspires interest, and support, is hardly comparable to people succumbing to the rule of Stalin. Come now.

    Yes I think that is why he distinctly pointed to the monarchy in Europe before the nineteenth century.


  • Options
    #30
    Affable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭Affable


    turgon wrote: »
    Yes I think that is why he distinctly pointed to the monarchy in Europe before the nineteenth century.

    Yes, and he was using that as evidence that 'arbitrariness', which I referenced in reference to today's, and the future's royals, is a bad thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    mikemac wrote: »
    Glad to be a citizen rather a subject.

    Me too


Advertisement