Jun 11, 17 / Can 22, 01 06:03 UTC
value of having a constitution ¶
Where the monarchy is hereditary, the system is rigged at the outset. I see no value to the citizenry that the monarch has greater than the power of suggestion in the daily operations of government. If random personnel changes are made by the leader but ultimately controlled by a cabinet, then I can agree. The power of appointment and dismissal must have written boundaries [In This Document]. That is not what I see here. I had no further need or incentive to read past that. Dissolve Parliament? Really? How does this comport with all of the equality and respect phrasing. Give the government a single person that can negotiate - absolutely, let them suggest what is important, but allocating a King slot in a constitution is redundant. From my reading, the concept of rule by law and the need for this thing called a constitution were driven by the excesses of anointed kings and hereditary leaders.
What are the outlined directives for the content of this document, and what are the motivations that generate all this support for a royal anything? This nation is ostensibly a democratic assembly of people with concerns directed toward the general populace. So what benefit does the citizenry derive from the leader's opportunity to displace parliament, or a chairman of the named ministries at a whim is not valuable to the best pursuit of government to serve the needs of the governed. Perhaps this is currently demonstrated by the actions of a marginally sane leader recently elected in the USA.
I can not support this travesty of intent. If the bulk of the document seeks to elevate humanity and honors "the Noosphere", or humanity's future personal equality, why build in a framework that creates a leadership perk that brings no benefit to organized beneficent governance?