Ndebeles want to restore Monarchy in Zimbabwe
There is hope for Zimbabwe: A Monarchy. "Amid widespread economic vandalism and open regional marginalisation, the ostracized Ndebele minority are making fresh calls to restore the Ndebele monarchy in Zimbabwe.
"The renewed calls for the restoration of the monarch, overthrown by British colonialists more than 135 years ago, comes amid grinding poverty in the region and a lackadaisical official response to the humanitarian crisis gripping the two Matabeleland provinces – bastion of support for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party.
"Frustrated by what they see as their marginalisation by Robert Mugabe’s predominantly Shona government, Ndebele chiefs and political activists have started mobilising to revive their kingdom."
The whole article
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Friday, 5 September 2008
Bear or Moose? - The Age is unbearable
The republican arguments against the Monarchy are getting thinner day by day.
Instead of giving us a clue how the life of the average citizen would improve, should the Monarchy be replaced with a republic of some sort, Graham Reilly likes to pose as animal rescuer. Using the latest attack of Peta activists against the bear skin wearing guards outside Buckingham Palace, The Age’s “senior writer” concluded: “If there were no royals, there would be no need for such regal helmetry.”
But why stop there? Go one step further, Graham: Abolish the vice-presidential position in the USA to rescue the Alaskan moose from being killed! Or do you make the now famous Alaskan moose hunter vice president to save the specie?
Tom Parker Bowles, the Duchess of Cornwall's son, told The Daily Telegraph (23rd July 2008) about Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals): "They are absolutely mad, these people. Once, I was writing an article about a snail farm and the farmer pleaded with me not to publish its name, or he said the farm would be picketed by protesters." Peta's terror methods would let the intruders on the Brumby family's farm look like friendly guests. However, it seems when it serves the republican purposes, they are welcome bedfellows.
The republican arguments against the Monarchy are getting thinner day by day.
Instead of giving us a clue how the life of the average citizen would improve, should the Monarchy be replaced with a republic of some sort, Graham Reilly likes to pose as animal rescuer. Using the latest attack of Peta activists against the bear skin wearing guards outside Buckingham Palace, The Age’s “senior writer” concluded: “If there were no royals, there would be no need for such regal helmetry.”
But why stop there? Go one step further, Graham: Abolish the vice-presidential position in the USA to rescue the Alaskan moose from being killed! Or do you make the now famous Alaskan moose hunter vice president to save the specie?
Tom Parker Bowles, the Duchess of Cornwall's son, told The Daily Telegraph (23rd July 2008) about Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals): "They are absolutely mad, these people. Once, I was writing an article about a snail farm and the farmer pleaded with me not to publish its name, or he said the farm would be picketed by protesters." Peta's terror methods would let the intruders on the Brumby family's farm look like friendly guests. However, it seems when it serves the republican purposes, they are welcome bedfellows.
Monday, 1 September 2008
The Joys and Scares of Republicanism
Contrary to the bright future in flourishing democracy and in prosperity that republicans claim "an" Australian republic would be, this is what a direct elected presidential system could hold in store. In a letter to The Age of 1st September 2008 a reader expressed these fears:
I am perturbed, no, I am absolutely terrified when I think of the ramifications of McCain’s selection of a running mate. If anything should happen to John McCain, and let’s face it, he is 72, we would then have an untravelled, inexperienced, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty (these on their own seem to be a contradiction) pro-creationist, pro-drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness, woman with an accent that could cut glass as president of the most powerful country in the world. Does the world really want or need this? I certainly hope not!
R. H., Beaumaris, Victoria
A rather scary portrait of a possible US vice president or even US president. An elected monarch for four years with men and women nobody knows waiting in the shadow to take over the administration not only of the 300 million US cititens, but to a large extent, of us all. Instead of a cabinet or a party leadership with lots of names the US voters vest all their hopes – or fears – on four people. Who will form the next US administration? Nobody knows. That’s an even scarier thought than the potential vice president Sarah Palin becoming president.
Although our Monarch exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, and other institutions. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. The Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land - its authority is not absolute).
The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, (s)he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour.
Contrary to the bright future in flourishing democracy and in prosperity that republicans claim "an" Australian republic would be, this is what a direct elected presidential system could hold in store. In a letter to The Age of 1st September 2008 a reader expressed these fears:
I am perturbed, no, I am absolutely terrified when I think of the ramifications of McCain’s selection of a running mate. If anything should happen to John McCain, and let’s face it, he is 72, we would then have an untravelled, inexperienced, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-death-penalty (these on their own seem to be a contradiction) pro-creationist, pro-drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness, woman with an accent that could cut glass as president of the most powerful country in the world. Does the world really want or need this? I certainly hope not!
R. H., Beaumaris, Victoria
A rather scary portrait of a possible US vice president or even US president. An elected monarch for four years with men and women nobody knows waiting in the shadow to take over the administration not only of the 300 million US cititens, but to a large extent, of us all. Instead of a cabinet or a party leadership with lots of names the US voters vest all their hopes – or fears – on four people. Who will form the next US administration? Nobody knows. That’s an even scarier thought than the potential vice president Sarah Palin becoming president.
Although our Monarch exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, and other institutions. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. The Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land - its authority is not absolute).
The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, (s)he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
