NationStates Jolt Archive

...the Brazilian monarchy was overthrown in a coup d'état, and Brazil's republican government was born.

So, I ask: Has Brazil been better, or worse, since adopting republicanism? What would Brazil be like today had the coup failed or never happened?

Discuss.

That makes this a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally long coup d'état.

"It was 118 years ago today,
That Sergeant Fonseca told the king to abdicayt,
It's being going in and out of style..."

That makes this a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally long coup d'état.

lol, what I meant was that it occurred 118 years ago as of today, not that it's been ongoing since then. :p

lol, what I meant was that it occurred 118 years ago as of today, not that it's been ongoing since then. :p

I know, I just have nothing usefull to say about the topic and thus turned to ridiculing your choice of title. And drugs.

"It was 118 years ago today,
That Sergeant Fonseca told the king to abdicayt,
It's being going in and out of style..."

"...so this could take a damn long while."

I know, I just have nothing usefull to say about the topic and thus turned to ridiculing your choice of title. And drugs.

lol

I don't know ask the street kids, or maybe the girl from Ipanema?

Much better. Monarchies suck.

Much better. Monarchies suck.

Why?

I think it would have been better if the Monarchy hadn't been overthrown. Historically, nations whose major political changes come about by peaceful reform rather than an aggressive coup d'état are more likely to become stable democracies.

The Tsar of Russia, having been overthrown by the Menschevik and Social Revolutionaries in the 1917 revolution, who were then overthrown by the Bolscheviks, had in fact laid down the basic components of self-determining democracy by instituting the Duma Assembly after the peaceful revolution of 1905. I believe this could have become something more before the Bolscheviks closed the subsequent Constitituent Assembly, and replaced it with thier own slim view of "democracy", the Politburo.

When a government, even a democratic one, is forced upon a people, there are always inherent flaws. The group that engaged in the coup will impose thier own view of "democracy" on the people by the virtue that they just happened to be the ones to take over the Palace.

Democracy has to be allowed to develop naturally. Violent revolutions and outside influence spoils it.

Why?

Because blood is no reliable indication of leadership merit. That and the reactionary concept of inherited privilege went out a long time ago.

.. peaceful revolution ...thats an oxymoron

thats an oxymoron

What about the Glorious Revolution?

It's unfortunate but revolutionary periods always tend to cause lots of death and destruction.

On the other hand, it's pretty much the only practical way to change from one system - like monarchism, feudalism, or any communism - to another. In that sense I think it was good that the monarchy was gotten rid of. But that doesn't mean I approve of every despotic government that's happened since then. I think Brazil is going to find its glory days pretty soon, though. They seem to be a lot better off than they were with the military dictatorship, for example.

I believe it was Dissonant Cognition who said that the only place for a king is hanging by a rope under a tree limb.

118 years ago to this day...118?

we kicked them out 224 years ago.

and I can assure it was not peaceful at all.
we killed them.. and killed them some more.. we killed them every chance we had.. we kept killing them until they surrendered.

It's unfortunate but revolutionary periods always tend to cause lots of death and destruction.

Even the Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolution?

Even the Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolution?

I was referring to political revolution. You know, topic of the thread.

Even the Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolution?funny guy.
we are talking about a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed i LOL'ed :D

It's unfortunate but revolutionary periods always tend to cause lots of death and destruction.

Clearly, the average intellect of this thread is hovering at IQ 80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1991end&Year=1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_of_1932

These are just the first few that sprung to mind...

Clearly, the average intellect of this thread is hovering at IQ 80.why is that?

Clearly, the average intellect of this thread is hovering at IQ 80.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1991end&Year=1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_of_1932

These are just the first few that sprung to mind...

Those were hardly full blown revolutions. Orange Revolution was just a change of leadership, the end of communism in Europe was caused by the collapse of the Soviets, rather than a revolution, and I don't know about the last one.

why is that?

Greater Trostria's IQ of 0 skews the distribution

Those were hardly full blown revolutions. Orange Revolution was just a change of leadership, the end of communism in Europe was caused by the collapse of the Soviets, rather than a revolution, and I don't know about the last one.

If you define a "revolution" as "a bloody struggle to overthrow a government" then arguing about whether or not revolutions are bloody is a moot point.

If you go with a dictionary definition: "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another" then it's fairly clear that revolutions do not have to be violent at all.

And since the Brazilian Revolution in question was NOT violent, then in the context of this thread arguing that revolutions are invariably violent is obviously stupid.

I believe it was Dissonant Cognition who said that the only place for a king is hanging by a rope under a tree limb.

A lot of leftists love to harp about democracy. What if "the people" want a monarch?

A lot of leftists love to harp about democracy. What if "the people" want a monarch?

It doesn't happen. Give me an example of a movement from a representative, liberal (by historical standards) democracy to a monarchy.

I'm not saying it did or would happen, just "what if."

Then the monarchy would have legitimacy derived from popular support.

Which is the effective definition of a DEMOCRACY.

It doesn't happen. Give me an example of a movement from a representative, liberal (by historical standards) democracy to a monarchy.

I'm not saying it did or would happen, just "what if."

To get back to the Op, I'd say that in general the Brazillian Republic has been a successful one. They did have an unpleasent period in the 60's and 70's under a dictatorship, but even that was fairly mild when compared to Pinochet or the Argentine Junta.

It doesn't happen. Give me an example of a movement from a representative, liberal (by historical standards) democracy to a monarchy.

Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)

Specifically:
After a national referendum confirmed the people's preference for a monarchy over a republic, the Norwegian government offered the throne of Norway to the Danish Prince Carl and Parliament unanimously elected him king. He took the name of Haakon VII, after the medieval kings of independent Norway.

It wasn't really a move from a "representative, liberal, democracy" per se, rather a decision (by referendum) as to what sort of government a newly independent nation was to have.

However, it is a case in which the people chose to have a monarchy. So, apparently, it does happen.

Point taken, but the Norway that resulted was a monarchy in name only.

What I believe most NSG posters refer to as a "monarchy" is one where the monarch actually holds the power, which was not the case in Norway at the time.

Similarly, I believe there have been other restorations of monarchs--but never a voluntary return to an absolute (or not-so-absolute) monarchy.

Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)

Specifically:


It wasn't really a move from a "representative, liberal, democracy" per se, rather a decision (by referendum) as to what sort of government a newly independent nation was to have.

However, it is a case in which the people chose to have a monarchy. So, apparently, it does happen.
I get the feeling that this is a democracy vs. monarchy rather than democratic republic vs. constitutional monarchy, if you take my meaning.

I get the feeling that this is a democracy vs. monarchy rather than democratic republic vs. constitutional monarchy, if you take my meaning.

No specification was made. Constitutional is merely an adjective describing what type of monarchy it is.

The original quotation by Imperio Mexicani merely asked "what if the people want a monarch?"

And the people of Norway did want one. The referendum won, getting 79% of the vote.

If a more narrow meaning is desired, it must be specified. Imperio Mexicani did not specify, he simply said "monarch." Which can be any kind of monarch, an absolute or limited one. It's not my fault if people assumed a term meant more than it did. And I'd hardly say that Haakon VII was a monarch in name only, he was a pretty important figure in the recent history of Norway.

What I believe most NSG posters refer to as a "monarchy" is one where the monarch actually holds the power

In my case, that's correct. However, I do believe limits should be put on the monarch's power, and that monarchs who abuse their powers should be forced to abdicate.

Of course, all this beggars the questions: why monarchs at all?

In this day and age, wouldn't it be better to simply select a president-for-life rather than risk getting a bad monarch through a fluke of genetics?

As a brazilian, I have to say that you are wrong, there was no military intervention in the 1889 coup, we do not even consider it to be a revolution. the government was taken peacefully.

But, as a matter of fact, Brazil has developed more as a monarchy. In my opinion it's not the system of government that is responsible for that, but the fact that the revolution completely destroyed the balance of power that had been built in our 67 years of stability as a monarchy. That led to corruption, which led to undevelopment, which led to 3 other coups and two dictatorships

And, back on topic, most of the brazilians at the time were in favor of our Emperor D. Pedro II. Almost everybody liked him. The whole coup was a protest against the government, led by the Viscount of Ouro Preto. In fact, our first president, Field Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, was a monarchist and saluted the emperor while the coup was happening

Now, I'm a monarchist, btw, but, as I said earlier, for me, it's not the system that is responsible for the development, so, I guess I just don't care about who's in charge...

As a brazilian, I have to say that you are wrong, there was no military intervention in the 1889 coup, we do not even consider it to be a revolution. the government was taken peacefully.

But, as a matter of fact, Brazil has developed more as a monarchy. In my opinion it's not the system of government that is responsible for that, but the fact that the revolution completely destroyed the balance of power that had been built in our 67 years of stability as a monarchy. That led to corruption, which led to undevelopment, which led to 3 other coups and two dictatorships

And, back on topic, most of the brazilians at the time were in favor of our Emperor D. Pedro II. Almost everybody liked him. The whole coup was a protest against the government, led by the Viscount of Ouro Preto. In fact, our first president, Field Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, was a monarchist and saluted the emperor while the coup was happening

Now, I'm a monarchist, btw, but, as I said earlier, for me, it's not the system that is responsible for the development, so, I guess I just don't care about who's in charge...

Very interesting.

Thank you for your input. :)

thats an oxymoron

What about the East German revolution in 1989/1990?

Democracy has to be allowed to develop naturally. Violent revolutions and outside influence spoils it.

I think your right, the US had a violent revolution to break of from the UK, and look how nicely it turned out, very democratic indeed.

Note: No offense to anyone American, but I don't find the US to be the huge democracy it says it is.

No specification was made. Constitutional is merely an adjective describing what type of monarchy it is.
Which was exactly my point. I got the impression that Imperio Mexicano was not talking about the kind of monarchy that Norway became, which would usually be described as a constitutional monarchy, along with other European monarchies, however incorrectly.

The original quotation by Imperio Mexicani merely asked "what if the people want a monarch?"
No. The quote was "A lot of leftists love to harp about democracy. What if "the people" want a monarch?"

And the people of Norway did want one. The referendum won, getting 79% of the vote.

If a more narrow meaning is desired, it must be specified. Imperio Mexicani did not specify, he simply said "monarch." Which can be any kind of monarch, an absolute or limited one. It's not my fault if people assumed a term meant more than it did. And I'd hardly say that Haakon VII was a monarch in name only, he was a pretty important figure in the recent history of Norway.
It might not have been specified, but it was implied. Imperio Mexicano was talking about the kind of monarchy where a monarch hold real, effective power, as opposed to one limitied to working within the context of a democratic system, such as Norway.

Of course, all this beggars the questions: why monarchs at all?

In this day and age, wouldn't it be better to simply select a president-for-life rather than risk getting a bad monarch through a fluke of genetics?

The problem with electing a President for Life is that President's tend to be political beings - they tend to be from one party or another, and when you put someone that is politicised into a position of power, then you end up with dangerous problems.

A monarch, on the other end, tends not to be politicised - they did not have to campaign to win the people's popularity to get that position and therefore are less likely to make decisions that are in the worst needs of the country. Of course, I am referring to it in a Constitutional Monarchial sense.

Also, consider this, the United States is the one of a few nations that has used the Presidental system and not become a dictatorship; there are very few constitutional monarchies that have become dictatorships, and indeed, successful nations such as Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are all constitutional monarchies.

Which was exactly my point. I got the impression that Imperio Mexicano was not talking about the kind of monarchy that Norway became, which would usually be described as a constitutional monarchy, along with other European monarchies, however incorrectly.
I didn't get that impression at all, I got the impression of any kind of monarch, and immediately thought of Norway, which had chosen to have one.


No. The quote was "A lot of leftists love to harp about democracy. What if "the people" want a monarch?"
And in the case I stated, they opted for a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic. Still choosing a monarch.


It might not have been specified, but it was implied. Imperio Mexicano was talking about the kind of monarchy where a monarch hold real, effective power, as opposed to one limitied to working within the context of a democratic system, such as Norway.
The implication was not very strong, as I simply thought of various monarchies that I knew of, most of which are constitutional.

I didn't get that impression at all, I got the impression of any kind of monarch, and immediately thought of Norway, which had chosen to have one.

And in the case I stated, they opted for a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic. Still choosing a monarch.

The implication was not very strong, as I simply thought of various monarchies that I knew of, most of which are constitutional.
Well, given by his use of "A lot of leftists love to harp about democracy.", I did get the impression that he was talking about a kind of monarchy that would not be democratic or constitutional, like Norway or the UK. Something he admits to (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13220621&postcount=35). It may not be a strong implication, but nevertheless, I think that is what he means, rather than 'monarchy' in a general sense.

Also, consider this, the United States is the one of a few nations that has used the Presidental system and not become a dictatorship; there are very few constitutional monarchies that have become dictatorships, and indeed, successful nations such as Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are all constitutional monarchies.
I wouldn't necessairily say that's the only reason, though.

Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)

Specifically:


It wasn't really a move from a "representative, liberal, democracy" per se, rather a decision (by referendum) as to what sort of government a newly independent nation was to have.

However, it is a case in which the people chose to have a monarchy. So, apparently, it does happen.Dont waste our/your time, read the thread, we are NOT talking about decorative royals here.

A lot of leftists love to harp about democracy. What if "the people" want a monarch?

As noted earlier in the thread, there is a real difference between a "constitutional monarch" figurehead and a an actual by definition monarch who rules alone.

In any case, I still would not support the monarchy in either case, regardless of their popularity. A monarch's authority is illegitimate, regardless of whether or not the majority agrees with his/her autocracy.

Dont waste our/your time, read the thread, we are NOT talking about decorative royals here.

But decorative royals are so much better than presidents who like to re-decorate constitutions.

But decorative royals are....just decoration.

Dont have the power and the authority to Regulate and Manage the Country business.. Dont have the power and the authority to enforce Rules and Laws.

Just a family of luxury welfare recipients.. which the collective fantasy/silliness has decided should receive special treatment.

Just D-e-c-o-r-a-t-i-o-n.

I think it would have been better if the Monarchy hadn't been overthrown. Historically, nations whose major political changes come about by peaceful reform rather than an aggressive coup d'état are more likely to become stable democracies.

The Tsar of Russia, having been overthrown by the Menschevik and Social Revolutionaries in the 1917 revolution, who were then overthrown by the Bolscheviks, had in fact laid down the basic components of self-determining democracy by instituting the Duma Assembly after the peaceful revolution of 1905. I believe this could have become something more before the Bolscheviks closed the subsequent Constitituent Assembly, and replaced it with thier own slim view of "democracy", the Politburo.

When a government, even a democratic one, is forced upon a people, there are always inherent flaws. The group that engaged in the coup will impose thier own view of "democracy" on the people by the virtue that they just happened to be the ones to take over the Palace.

Democracy has to be allowed to develop naturally. Violent revolutions and outside influence spoils it.

By 'democracy' I think you mean 'Republic' in every use.

Also, to back you up look at France, who is on it's 5th or 6th Republic, in between which have been several totalitarian reigns.

Proof that a gov't brought about by force is less effective. Look at 'second Reich' Germany, whish was peacefully created, and very well-maintained, and would maybe be a well-established Imperial Republic today, had Kaiser Wilhelm II not done everything he could to bring about it's ruination. In contrast to the Weimar Republik, which was forced on Germany after WWI, and outright rejected by pretty much everyone around a decade later.

But decorative royals are so much better than presidents who like to re-decorate constitutions.

That was a lame, and failed attempt to smear Bush... seriously, that doesn't even work very well... I give you an F.

Also, rediculously off-topic in a pointless way.

Clearly, the average intellect of this thread is hovering at IQ 80.

You know, I don't really see a point in addressing your Wiki Links Rebuttal when you can't resist making unwarranted personal attacks in the process. Learn to communicate more effectively and get back to me.

Dont waste our/your time, read the thread, we are NOT talking about decorative royals here.

I did read the thread. It's not my fucking fault if someone failed to specify what type of monarchy they indicated. When someone says "monarchy" I usually think of the European countries that have them, which tend to be constitutional monarchies.

Stop assuming things. And cut the condescending tone. You're not funny, nor do you even look 'witty.'

Don't know much about the Brazilian monarchy, but I'd bet it give them more stability than the many republican governments.