 Idle Note: (Parliamentary) Democracy, Joe Wilson vs some GQMFs, and Monarchy
|
Sep. 13th, 2009 @ 12:13 pm 
|
|---|
So, President Barack Obama of the United States of America was giving a formal address to a joint session of the Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, and he was heckled loudly and nastily by one Congressman J. Wilson (R).
Some of the reactions at the time were interesting. The President looked startled, but handled it with poise and grace. Vice-President Biden looked angry, and shook his head in disgust as he looked away. Speaker Pelosi looked shocked, and then angry; reportedly, not long afterwards, she received a note, in response to which she looked at someone to the left of the dais and nodded.
Quite possibly that someone was White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was sitting there, and who went to the Republicans where Wilson had been - Wilson fled immediately the speech concluded - and remonstrated with some of the Republicans there.
Wilson later called the White House to apologise, but was not given the privilege of addressing the President of the United States of America personally; instead he spoke to Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, as is entirely appropriate.
Here's the thing.
I've seen this compared to parliamentary democracy, in that parliament tends to involve a lot of heckling and whatnot.
This is an unfair comparison. I would be among the first to say that parliamentarian behaviour is ridiculously childish - I say among because I'm pretty sure that millions of people would be racing me to get there - but Wilson's behaviour would not be accepted in Parliament; in fact, any Speaker worth the role would have him removed for that.
Because he heckled a formal address on an important issue. This wasn't fucking QUESTION TIME, it was, in our terms, an address by the HEAD OF STATE to a joint sitting of Parliament, and that shit does not get HECKLED. Even in parliamentary democracy, there are times when the back benches shut the fuck up.
And this was not the Prime Minister, who is, after all, in essence the most senior MP; this was the President of the United States, who is not a member of Congress, but a different branch of government in his own right.
Heckling the President of the United States of America when he's in the midst of addressing a joint session of Congress is extremely disrespectful to the office of the Presidency. It's disrespecting the foundations of America's government and constitution.
It's okay to be disrespectful of Obama personally; generally unjustified, but allowable. You may well disagree with him, and that's fine.
However, in formal situations, he's not Barack Obama, Dude With Whom You Disagree; he's the President of the United States of America and you treat him accordingly, because to do otherwise is in effect being disrespectful to America.
This is why the rules of behaviour around monarchs are so intensely followed and formalised. It's because, when acting as head of state, they are the representatives of their countries. The "Royal we" exists for a reason.
Queen Elizabeth II, of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and a number of countries in the Commonwealth, will often, in speeches, say: "My husband and I..." when wishing to express sentiments she and Prince Philip are addressing to the nation, because, as a queen, it can be misconstrued if she simply says, "We." (She doesn't seem to favour using the royal We much anyway.)
The reason monarchs use "we" in some situations is because, when doing so, the monarch in question is speaking on behalf of the nation. If the king says "we" then the king is speaking for the country.
You treat a monarch with respect and courtesy because the monarch is standing in the place of the country. To disrespect Queen Elizabeth as monarch is to disrespect every country in which she reigns.
Which is why there's a certain sense, too, that there are certain things you can say if she's your queen that will provoke hostility if you're not from, at the very least, a Commonwealth country; we have ties to the monarchy that you don't. It's sort of like not letting outsiders criticise your family even in ways that you would. There's an implied insult to your country, and insider marking applies.
Although my favourite line of Queen-related humour in recent times was in the wake of the announcement that Nick Griffin, of the BNP, was to attend a Royal Garden Party.
Like many others, I would have loved it if it had panned out like it was suggested by, say, the Bugle; Griffin is introduced to Her Majesty, who asks him a bland question, as she does, and answers it, only to have her reply: "I'm sorry, I couldn't understand that - I don't speak Arsehole. Can anyone translate?"
Seriously, how awesome would that be?
I rather like the queen, I confess. I have some sympathy for her; she's a congenitally shy person who is obligated by duty to be in the public eye and meet people. She tries very very hard to be good at what she does - her memory for faces and names and the trivial details she learns about people is legendary - and to preserve the dignity of the Crown against all odds.
(Seriously, I met a guy who met the Queen twice, briefly, over twenty years apart. She remembered him.)
There was a kerfuffle a while back after she was seen responding to a suggestion by Annie Liebowitz that she remove the tiara she was wearing with her formal robes of state for a photo shoot, because it would be less formal. "Less formal? What do you think this is?"
Which: I'm on her side, there. The formal robes in question are heavy, hot, and uncomfortable, and formality is very much the point. Those aren't clothes she wears if she doesn't have to; the queen wears tasteful, colour-co-ordinated dresses and matching hats. Generally she has a brooch or something on, but she doesn't even wear a lot of jewellery.
She's 83 years old and she's still working - and she does a LOT of work. She could retire, either by handing over her duties to the Prince of Wales as Regent, or, in theory, by abdication - but she won't, because it's her duty. She swore an oath to the British People at her coronation and she will not betray it.
Yes, she has lived a life of privilege... but, unlike so many people with privilege, she has recognised that, and has recognised that with privilege comes duty, and has never, ever shirked her duty. From staying in London during the Blitz as a child, standing, with her parents, for all the other families who were living through the bombing (and their home was bombed), to maintaining her position in all the decades since - she has done her best.
I respect that.
And, frankly, the way the great Republic of America has been going lately, I'm kind of loving constitutional monarchy as a system of government anyway - so God Save the Queen, I say.
|
I believe that it's the person (or people) in control and not the system itself which makes or breaks it.
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/10386/9041) |
| From: | ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) elynross |
|---|
| Date: |
September 14th, 2009 04:39 pm (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
This is a fabulous post. I recently watched most of a series they showed on my local PBS here in the US, a "behind the scenes" of the British monarchy, and I was tremendously impressed with the sheer amount of work done not only by the Queen, but by the extended family and all the people who work to support the monarchy.
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/254881/16290) |
| From: | willow |
|---|
| Date: |
September 16th, 2009 03:37 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
You remind me of how confused Congress tends to make me, because I keep wanting to apply Parliamentary politics to it. zvi once spent an evening breaking it down to me. And I think I walked away still going 'But why is it so crazy?' - Basically the 'winner takes all / two party system' tends to make me go 'But why?' My mother currently has a hate on for Russia because their statesmen refused, apparently, to shake Obama's hand. And she was enraged that they'd do that to the Office of the POTUS, far less the man himself. It's hard for me not to think that it's easier for foreigners to disregard proper etiquette when they see someone's own country men disrespecting the office, the way the protesters in the US have done. Obama's not the one making the country weaker, they are - by showing how much they don't believe in the principles the country is built on. Really, you'd think they'd be organizing for 2012, not doing a lot of shouting, rampaging and pants dropping.
|
|
