What's new

Question Should the Japanese monarch be elected?

Should the Japanese monarch be elected?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
I'm afraid I must withdraw from this discussion, Tigerstein978. I apologize.

But it wouldn't be polite if I didn't give you the reason why I feel compelled to withdraw.

Your writings are all over the political map, both geographically and historically.

For example, to properly compare one nation's system of governance to another in just the present day requires hundreds of pages of explanation, and you do not provide that.

The same is true of historical comparisons that span centuries. In fact, comparisons of historical events that may be hundreds of years apart require many more than hundreds of pages.

I suppose I mean I can't make sense of your writings.

Again, I apologize.
I'm glad your withdrawing! Instead of answering my questions or addressing my points, you prefer to call me names! There is. Noting wrong with my comparisons! Absolute Monarchy was a disaster for both Japan and the U.K! And the Japanese monarch having the same limited amount of power as Queen Elizabeth II wouldn't do any harm. Japan's government has had problems with corruption just the British government. Power and Money in Japanese Politics corruption Political Corruption and Social Structure in Japan on JSTOR Japan Corruption Report 2 Cabinet Ministers Resigned in Japan. Their Downfall? Melons and Potatoes. (Published 2019)
 
Did you even read what I wrote?! I brought up the tyranny of Charles I and how his execution deterred anyone else from trying to reestablish absolute monarchy in the UK.
That's not very relevant to your main thesis which is to give political power to the emperor and make it an elected position. The fact that there's a mechanism to prevent abuse of the power is not an argument for why it's needed in the first place.
Besides that, WWII in the pacific should be enough reason why the imperial system should have severe restrictions.
And that's exactly what happened when the post-war constitution was created. The restriction is such that there is no real imperial system any more.
I also mentioned that having a ruler who has absolutley no say in the affairs of his country is absurd.
Yes, you've mentioned this. It's an opinion and doesn't seem to be backed up by anything of substance. You stated that it's necessary in order to provide a check/balance to corruption in Parliament. That seems highly hypothetical. Do you have any examples of where this power was used against corruption successfully? If a truly corrupt regime came into power they'd put the monarch into house arrest or execute them or sideline them somehow.
Saying that I have an agenda and don't know that the Japanese monarchy is purely ceremonial and insinuating that me not living or planning to live in Japan means I can't comment on it is definitely an insult!
Let me guess, the reason you showed up here is because virtually every other forum you've been on has banned you. At some point doesn't it get tiring to take umbrage at every little perceived slight?
 
Tigerstein978 said:
Absolute Monarchy was a disaster for both Japan and the U.K!
Then it's a good thing Japan isn't an "absolute monarchy" anymore, isn't it?

Tigerstein978 said:
And the Japanese monarch having the same limited amount of power as Queen Elizabeth II wouldn't do any harm.
Then it's a good thing that the Japanese monarch's "power" is so extremely limited as to be virtually nonexistent (though you seem to want to change this).

Tigerstein978 said:
Japan's government has had problems with corruption just the British government.
And how exactly would giving the emperor more power and making it an elected position change this? The same people voting in the corrupt politicians would be voting in the elected emperor.

You'll notice that I'm literally only addressing the content of your words now. I would appreciate if you could do me the same courtesy.
 
Back
Top Bottom