An interesting commentary from a blogger, writing for the Daily Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/08/20/demoralised_georgia_may_renew_itself_by_restoring_its_monarchy
My own personal view is that Georgia has far more serious issues. The country's leaders picked a fight with an angry, belligerent Russia (which is a lot bigger than Georgia). Russia is also still trying to find a position for itself in Europe (and elsewhere.) Who would have thought even 20 years ago that Poland and other former Eastern-bloc nations would be members of NATO and the European Union. I certainly could not have believed 20 years that Poland would welcome U.S., missiles. Of course, not everyone in Poland accepts this, but, they can speak out about it now.
Georgia made threats against Russia, and Russia cracked down with its military might.
Georgia was a monarchy until 1801, but Georgia was not considered a part of the West. Georgia was absorbed into Russia and remained a part of Russia until the Russian Revolution. From 1918 until 1921, Georgia was an independent nation. The Soviet army invaded Georgia, and in 1922, Georgia became a part of the Soviet Union.
Thus, this country of just over 4 million, has had little experience in maintaining an independent nation.
The heir to the Georgian throne is Prince Davit (David), who was born in Spain in 1976. He has lived in Georgia since 2003, and maintains a dual Georgian and Spanish citizenship. Earlier this year, David succeeded his father, Jorge, as head of the house and de jure sovereign, following Jorge's death in January. David's older brother, Irakli, renounced his rights to the throne.
It is one thing to espouse views that endorse a monarchy. But I personally do not see how a monarchy could help Georgia at this time. Prince David, who has great affection for his homeland, has neither the experience nor the background to be the head of state of a fractured, fragile nation. Sadly, Georgia does not have a system of checks and balances that here in the US we take for granted - and I hope will protect us in the event of a McCain-Palin win. I cannot support a candidate who threatens librarians and wants to ban books.
4 comments:
I certainly agree that this is not something that should be a pressing concern for Georgia right now, but I do see a benefit for them to consider when they have a more opportune moment. One of the problems they share with most of the Soviet successor states (the Baltics excluded) is the concentration of power in the hands of a president. A parliamentary system - with or without a constitutional monarch as its figurehead - might be a better guaranteur of both civil liberties and less reckless policies.
I agree with you Marlene.
Georgia has very different issues at stake. Here it shows that the transition from an autotarian rule to a proper democarcy is VERY difficult. King or not, the question of having a population in parts of the country which is or feels more Russian and Georgian is not going be solved by a change in the system of government. We have similar problems in Ukrain and remember we had riots in Estonia not long time ago due to the same reasons. These tensions do not have to erupt, but as long as politicans play that card to gain power it will (see the former Jugoslavia). I think that Gary has a very valid point - a funcitiong parliamentary system might be the far better and long lasting solution. Maybe the Bragation could think of taking the route of the former Bulgarian monarch....
For you other comments: yes inded that is rather shocking. I am amazed how split the US are. It shocked me when studying in Boston. For European taste I guess the Democrats are easier to rely. I personally do not like this patriotic sentiment and hate if having a different opinion one is labled to be unpatroatic. Dreadful!
And then there is another difference between the US and Europe ... the use of "are" ... we say the US IS not are ... because the US is not plural .. it is a single entity .. we also say the team is .. because the team is one ... A team may include more than one person, but that does not make it plural. :) One other difference: toward (US) and towards (British English).
Please do not confuse patriotism with nationalism. Americans of all shapes and sizes are patriotic. It is a part of our character. I am certainly patriotic, but I do not share the McCain-Palin views. But they are no less patriotic than other Americans. The Times' Washington Correspondent, Bronwen Maddox recently wrote an article to help Britons understand more about Americans. When Britons or any other foreign tourist comes to the US for vacations, they tend to visit the East or West Coast. They don't head to the heartland - middle America. They do not go to Alaska. This is a very big country with divergent views. I might think that health care is an issue, and should be of concern. But apparently Sarah Palin doesn't. She cut funds for shelters for teen age mothers in Alaska. She has not endeared herself to me because of several issues. One - she has no respect for the freedom of choice. You can read abortion rights into that statement, and I would not disagree; but when she was mayor of Wasilla, she fired the librarian because the librarian would not remove (BAN) certain books from the shelves. And .. she cannot pronounce Iraq ... yo, Sarah, it's er-rack not Eye - rack. Cringe.
patriotism & nationalism - yes, indeed that is a difference.
I believe that the US is indeed in general more patriotic. But the present administration and inded the McCain election team often labled those who do not follow their line mostly on foreign policy issues as being unpatriotic. This is what I can not stand, whether in the US or in any other country. It is dangerous and undemocratic.
Post a Comment