What I'd Like To See
May. 22nd, 2014 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poliphiloI'm all for having a head of state who doesn't also lead the government of the day. I think it's useful- both for national cohesion and as a tool of diplomacy- to have a national figurehead who is above party politics.
But I'm against hereditary monarchy. Two reasons: 1. it engenders a flunkeyism I find disgusting and demeaning and 2. it's so random in what it throws up. The present Queen lacks charisma but otherwise does her job admirably; her son and heir is (see last post) a self-centred twit- who is still making elementary mistakes in spite of having been in training for over 60 years.
So, we need a president. An elected president. And I'd write it into the rules that no-one who belongs to a political party need apply. That would scotch the hideous prospect (which people always raise in opposition to the idea) of a President Blair.
Who does that leave? Lots of people. Soldiers, sailors, diplomats, business people, writers, trades unionists, doctors, nurses, pop singers, actors, all sorts. The qualifications for the job are charisma and people skills and that's about it. All we require is someone who can represent the nation in public- on the national and international stages- and not make an arse of themselves. If Elizabeth Windsor- a very ordinary person when you peel off the glitz- can make a good fist of it then so can my Aunt Dolly (not that I have an Aunt Dolly).
Oh, and I'd run the elections on TV- with regional heats- as if it were Master Chef or the X Factor- with some sort of preliminary screening out of the hopeless cases. It'd be fun and you'd get massive voter participation.
PS: G.K. Chesterton (in the Napoleon of Notting Hill) suggested choosing a king by universal lottery. That's not a bad idea either. It's wonderfully democratic.
But I'm against hereditary monarchy. Two reasons: 1. it engenders a flunkeyism I find disgusting and demeaning and 2. it's so random in what it throws up. The present Queen lacks charisma but otherwise does her job admirably; her son and heir is (see last post) a self-centred twit- who is still making elementary mistakes in spite of having been in training for over 60 years.
So, we need a president. An elected president. And I'd write it into the rules that no-one who belongs to a political party need apply. That would scotch the hideous prospect (which people always raise in opposition to the idea) of a President Blair.
Who does that leave? Lots of people. Soldiers, sailors, diplomats, business people, writers, trades unionists, doctors, nurses, pop singers, actors, all sorts. The qualifications for the job are charisma and people skills and that's about it. All we require is someone who can represent the nation in public- on the national and international stages- and not make an arse of themselves. If Elizabeth Windsor- a very ordinary person when you peel off the glitz- can make a good fist of it then so can my Aunt Dolly (not that I have an Aunt Dolly).
Oh, and I'd run the elections on TV- with regional heats- as if it were Master Chef or the X Factor- with some sort of preliminary screening out of the hopeless cases. It'd be fun and you'd get massive voter participation.
PS: G.K. Chesterton (in the Napoleon of Notting Hill) suggested choosing a king by universal lottery. That's not a bad idea either. It's wonderfully democratic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-05-22 03:11 pm (UTC)The hereditary principle has never worked very well. Most of our post-medieval kings and queens have been nullities- with one or real stinkers.