Sarkozy on the way to Bonapartism

What happens, when a monarchy in a country like, let’s say France, is abolished? Do the people enjoy their “republican freedom” and is there more liberty for the individual? The French people looked for a replacement. François Mitterrand (1981-1995) was called “Le Roi Soleil” because he behaved like King Louis XIV, Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) thought he was the sun king, but his nepotism brought him trouble and he is now being questioned by investigating magistrates about his expenditure, which – according to his mates – is unfair, “after such a long time”.
And what about the new president, Nicolas Sarkozy? He behaves not like a king, but more like an emperor: Bonapartism is back and now known as Sarkozysm. His second wife ran away in September and the couple divorced a month later. Obviously Cécilia was not happy about the criticism of her using the state’s credit cards for her private shopping tours.

Now without a wife, what does the little new emperor do? He is asking mother to accompany him. Madame Andrée was seen in China greeting the Chinese dictator Hu Jintao with a polite: “Pleased to meet you.” («Très heureuse de faire votre connaissance.») while Sarkozy introduced his son Pierre to China’s leader with a doubtful recommendation: “We will send him to you. He needs discipline.” («On va vous l’envoyer, il lui faut de l’autorité.» http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/26/content_7146221.htm). Well, well, isn’t France’s president able to exercise authority over his son? Obviously Sarkozy’s authority was under scrutiny while he was exchanging pleasantries in China. The suburbs were on fire again and - who knows - perhaps the wannabe authoritarian played with a Chinese solution? Napoléon had no remorse to kill fellow countrymen, especially if they were Royalists. In October of 1795, Napoléon Bonaparte, then an emerging military officer, was placed in charge of troops sent to control a royalist riot in Paris. Though 100 men were killed, Napoléon succeeded in controlling the “mob”, and was soon given command of the French army.(Paris in the 19th century - http://dl.lib.brown.edu/paris/chronology1.html) After returning from his state visit to China, President Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed action against rioters. Hopefully he has read Napoléon’s memoirs.

It seems, France is going through troublesome months. Since his election in May, Nicolas Sarkozy has earned a reputation of being omnipresent (Super Sarko otherwise also know as Zorro Sarko). He visited the prisoners of the Arche de Zoë in Chad, he spoke to rioting fisherpeople in the Bretagne, he attended the funeral of two firemen who got killed in an accident. There’s no event, where you cannot expect Sarkozy to turn up. At the same time he doesn’t want to be seen as president whose only duty is to represent the state. His cabinet ministers are sidelined and the Prime Minister was caught talking off camera about his displeasure that he, a personal friend of Sarko, has nothing to say. That changed briefly during Sarkozy’s visit to China, but as soon as he touched ground back home again, he went straight to Villiers-le-Bel, were the latest suburban riots started. The question is: Will his presence calm or upset the rioters? As interior minister in 2005 Sarkozy fuelled the uprising with his remarks.

Sarkozy tires to control everything. That includes his own political friends. Instead of letting the government do its job, he keeps a “kitchen” cabinet separate from the official cabinet making the ministers in charge look like puppets, when they are allowed to accompany their master to one of his frequent trips to a country hot-spot.

With the ever rising ego of Sarkozy the day can’t be far that he will be proclaimed Emperor Nicolas 1er.

A real Monarchy would not face this dilemma. That’s why the number of Royalists is on the rise in France. Before Sarkozy’s election the Royalists got 20 percent of the population behind their ideas. Sarkozy’s Bonapartism will make people realize that there’s something wrong with Bonapartism as well as with republicanism. Vive le roi!

The Coat of Arms of Barbados was adopted upon independence in 1966 by decree of Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Barbados. Like other former British posessions in the Caribbean, the coat of arms has a helmet with a national symbol on top, and a shield beneath that is supported by two animals.

Republicans are braggarts

Republicans are braggarts. All the time and everywhere. Do you need proof? Here's the latest example for my assertion.

When republicans live in a Monarchy and work for its destruction, they claim the “vast majority” does not identify with the institution, the Monarchy is old fashioned and outdated, nobody is interested in the Royal Family and their duties, etc.

But when it comes to a referendum to introduce a republic, the great reformers suddenly shriek off and turn frightened to use the “r”-word. After all, it IS a frightful word connected with lots of atrocities throughout its history of the past 229 years. Look at all those fabolous republics from Zimbabwe via Pakistan to China.

What do republicans do when they call for a referendum, and when they try to avoid the simple question: “Do you want a Monarchy or a republic?”? They use a manipulative trick which indicates that they aren’t very certain about their cause:

The Deputy Prime Minister of Barbados has announced via the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation that when the country goes to the polls in nine months, a referendum on whether the country should become a republic will be held concurrently. According to an unsourced statement on Wikipedia, the question is to be:
"Do you believe Barbados should have a Barbadian as its head of state?"

A perfidious question because it infers that everyone who votes NO and who wants to retain the Monarchy was Un-Barbadian, anti-national, unpatriotic.

The proposed question is far from a being a fair question if the Barbadians want the Monarchy or a republic. It does not address what relationship there should be between the people of Barbados and the Crown, but it is pure and unashamed populism. It is malicious. How will the Monarchists of Barbados lead their campaign for a “foreign Head of State”. Even though the Queen of Barbados is no foreigner, but as Barbadian as any other Barbadian, the supporters of the Monarchy will have a hard time to organise a referendum campaign.

Once again this example shows that republicans refer to referenda won by republicans as fair and open (Italy 1946 or Greece in 1973/74), however, in cases where the Monarchists won, they were manipulated (Australia 1999, Spain 1947, Greece 1935 and again 1946).

Republicans are bad losers. And never fair players, I may add.

The Head of the Commonwealth is the Monarch of the UK and Her/His other Realms and Territories - and not a Politician
Could you imagine the Commonwealth without the Queen as "Head of the Commonwealth"? No one can. Then why is it that such a provocative sentence can be found on the Commonwealth's website:

When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth. It will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what they want to do about this symbolic role.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth/

To say that the "Head of the Commonwealth" is a "non-hereditary position" is science fiction or wishful thinking of some politicians who would like to grab the job for themselves.

When Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 she became Head of the Commonwealth and inherited this title from her father, the late King George VI.

To change this tradition would be a revolution, a change of the whole system of how the Commonwealth of Nations works. Should the leaders of the 53 member nations after Her Majesty's death refuse King Charles as new Head of the Commonwealth and elect one out of their own midst, the Commonwealth could end up with a very controversial African leader who happens to find a majority among the members. And I am not talking about someone honourable like Nelson Mandela who is even older than the Queen. And hopefully Robert Mugabe might not be in the race either (at present Zimbabwe is suspended from the Commonwealth). The British Monarch is not only above party lines, but also above nationalism and nepotism.

The Commonwealth with a republican head would be much to the delight of the few British republicans who are desperate to gain some ground, but it would be on the way to decline for lack of unbiased advice from a Monarch.

Look at other associations that were set up by former colonial powers and their colonies. Have you ever heard of the Francophonie, where French speaking countries, not necessarily former French colonies gather once a year to celebrate their language? The Lusitanian Association of the former Portuguese Colonies? The meeting of the former Spanish colonies in South America only gained the public interest because King Juan Carlos of Spain told Hugo Chavez to shut up.

The members of the Commonwealth must ensure the smooth transition of this title after the Queen's death. Her son and heir, Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, will be a respectable and dynamic successor of Her Majesty also as Head of the Commonwealth with a keen interest in development and measures against climate change.

Shame on The Age. On the 60th Wedding Anniversary of the Queen of Australia and Prince Philip all Melbourne's daily newspaper could publish was a "Quote of the Day" on page 18, a remark of Prince Philip on breakfast.

Not a word about the church service in Westminster Abbey, no mentioning of the events that took place around the Diamond Wedding Anniversary.

The Age should be urged to drop its slogan: "If it matters to you, it matters to us." The Age is acting against all journalistic principles. There is no neutral news coverage on the Australian Monarchy. And that the referendum of 1999 was won by the Monarchists obviously does not please the editor and Fairfax, the newspaper's owners. They ignore that at least half of their readers must have voted in favour of the Monarchy. Why do they ignore the monarchist readers completely, treat them like children who cannot make up their own mind, who must be protected from monarchist news? I cannot help thinking that they are trying to impose on us, what matters to them.

Then there is the question: Why are they so insecure? Do they fear that reporting on royal events would lead to a huge increase in Monarchist sentiments in Australia?

Australia and the Queen’s Wedding Jubilee

It is a rare occasion for every one, but for a British Monarch, a Diamond Wedding Jubilee is an exceptional celebration. No other royal couple could look back to 60 years of married life as Queen Elizabeth, Queen of Australia, and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh will be able to do on 20th November 2007.

The Queen of Australia is immensely popular Down Under and leading republican Malcolm Turnbull acknowledged this in a recent interview in The Royalist [sic!]: “According to [Turnbull], the issue [of another referendum on a republic] may only be won following the death or abdication (an unlikely prospect unless Her Majesty suffers significant illness) of the present monarch.”

Despite these facts that Australia will do nothing to commemorate the Queen’s and the Duke’ Diamond Wedding Anniversary. Self-proclaimed monarchist Prime Minister John Howard MP let The Australian Monarchist League know: “…a gift from the Australian people on the occasion of their Diamond Wedding Anniversary … is not the historical practice of Australian Governments.”

Well, there had not been a precedence since there was no other Diamond Wedding Anniversary, or was there one, Mr. Howard?

The Australian Mail has no intention to follow for example New Zealand’s Post to issue a “Royal Wedding Anniversary” stamp. As a reply to my inquiries the Australian Mail stated: “Please note at this stage [9th September 2007] we have not been advised of any new stamp issue for the Diamond Jubilee.”

While the Australian politicians will pursue their electoral campaign the loyal subjects of Her Majesty Down Under can join celebrations organised by Monarchists, for example this one in Sydney:

Tuesday, 20 November , 2007: Luncheon, The Royal Society of ST. George, in the distinguished presence of HE The Governor of NSW, Professor Marie Bashir, Parliament House, Sydney to celebrate the Diamond Anniversary of HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.