|
UllrsIshtar -> RE: Brussels, Belgium (3/23/2016 1:44:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Belgium has a strong monarchy over parliament.
And not that it's relevant to the thread, but just because uninformed statements like that presented as fact piss me off:
Belgium doesn't even have a King.
As defined by the constitution, the King is King of the Belgians, not the King of Belgium.
In order words, he's a direct representative of the people, and for the people. His duty is to his subjects, not to the land, and he's got no claim or duty to the country itself. The sovereignty of Belgium as a country belongs to it's people, not to the King.
A Belgian monarch ascends the throne, only after swearing to the Constitution to the two houses of parliament. Considering that it's a popular monarchy -unlike any other currently in existence- the constitution allows for the Belgians, by means of elected government representation, to reject the King, and to refuse him the throne.
It's a distinction that's extremely important, both to Belgians, as well as the Royal family themselves (and they have historically always taken that distinction extremely serious).
As the representative of the people, it is the King's is bound by the Constitution more so than any other citizen, and it's his duty to act as the arbiter of the Belgians collective common conscious against the government, and to see that the will of the people is upheld by the government. He does this by signing laws into effect, after he's ethically decided that the law is indeed the will of the people, and is duty bound to refuse to sign laws he considers against his people's desires. At the same time, the King cannot make law, he can only approve it or reject it.
The only point in our short history (Belgium is a considerably younger country than the US) where it's ever been an issue is when the government asked the King to sign the abortion law into effect in 1990, which the King, as a private person and a devout Catholic could no ethically condone, while as an official representative of the people could not refuse because it was what the people wanted. Considering that he's constitutionally bound to place the interest of the Belgians above his own, he had no choice put to support the law, even though he personally rejected it.
The whole matter was solved by the King declaring himself "unable to rule" for a period of time, which is a provision made in case he's ill, or otherwise unable to fulfill his duty, at which point the Prime Minister signed the law into effect.
A monarchy over parliament? The King of the Belgians does not even stand in the way of the democratic desire of the people he serves when the will of the people demands of him to breach his own more core personal ethical and religious believes.
|
|
|
|
