I peripherally keep up with international politics, and one nation I follow is Georgia. I noticed on Pravda that Georgia is near formalizing its recent presidential election results, with the unofficial winner being Mr. Giorgi Margvelashvili I haven't read up on Mr. Margvelashvili, so I make no comment on him or his ability to preside over the affairs of the Georgian nation. Georgia is currently a republic, but the photo below of Mr. Margvelashvili is amusing to me.
 |
| Courtesy of Pravda.ru |
It is amusing because of Mr. Margvelashvili's head tucked neatly under the crown on the seal behind him. Georgia, actually has, however, a legitimate heir to its deposed monarchy, H.R.H. Prince Davit Bagrationi Mukhran.
Another thing I found interesting from the article is that based on a constitutional change:
Georgia will become a parliamentary republic, and the head of state will not be able to either take part in the formation of the Cabinet or influence the decisions of the government.
I understand the will of the people and all, but if the position is symbolic, why undergo the expense and process of a presidential election? Why not just return to a constitutional monarchy, with the Bagrationi heir on the throne? Is monarchy anathema to the Georgian people? With a constitutional monarch with similar limitations, there is at least the benefit of stability, and possibly to some extent, cost savings.
According to an article published by MSN in September 2012[1], the American people paid more than 20 times the amount of money ($1.4 billion USD vs $57.8 million USD) in maintaining President Obama and his household that the British did in maintaining HRH Queen Elizabeth II for the year of 2011. Not to mention the costs in remodeling the White House for every new president elected. Now, I don't want to begrudge anything due the President of the United States, he is one of the most important men in the world, and his home should reflect that[2]. However, the maintenance costs of our past several presidents are a far cry from the paltry budget allocated to decorating the White House in the early years of the republic[3]. The palaces of kings were commonly were filled with many old and precious things, but they were not redecorated every several years when a new tenant moved in. Given, I am throwing out this trivia without any context whatsoever. It may not be a valid comparison at all, but it demonstrates my point.
Granted, I am a nobody in my own country[4], much less on the international stage, but my question to the good citizens of Georgia would be this: which is better, a X year political cycle with its ongoing drama and recurring expenses, or a stable monarchic line with its tradition and (presumably) conservative expenditures? If the role is ceremonial, do you want the man who is the real deal, or just the man who happens to stand in front of an image of a crown?
According to an article published by MSN in September 2012[1], the American people paid more than 20 times the amount of money ($1.4 billion USD vs $57.8 million USD) in maintaining President Obama and his household that the British did in maintaining HRH Queen Elizabeth II for the year of 2011. Not to mention the costs in remodeling the White House for every new president elected. Now, I don't want to begrudge anything due the President of the United States, he is one of the most important men in the world, and his home should reflect that[2]. However, the maintenance costs of our past several presidents are a far cry from the paltry budget allocated to decorating the White House in the early years of the republic[3]. The palaces of kings were commonly were filled with many old and precious things, but they were not redecorated every several years when a new tenant moved in. Given, I am throwing out this trivia without any context whatsoever. It may not be a valid comparison at all, but it demonstrates my point.
Granted, I am a nobody in my own country[4], much less on the international stage, but my question to the good citizens of Georgia would be this: which is better, a X year political cycle with its ongoing drama and recurring expenses, or a stable monarchic line with its tradition and (presumably) conservative expenditures? If the role is ceremonial, do you want the man who is the real deal, or just the man who happens to stand in front of an image of a crown?
~~~
[2] http://www.wnyc.org/story/185533-first-ladies/
[3] Unfortunately, I can't find the reference I am looking for, but I have a book at home on the early years of the White House that I'll reference at a later date.
[4] Really, if you've actually ran across this blog, you've already figured out how irrelevant I am in the grand scheme of things.
No comments:
Post a Comment