Dutch Historian Wants Further Emasculation

Dutch historian Lamber Giebels believes the constitutional role currently played by the Dutch monarch is at odds with the nature of a true parliamentary democracy. So Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports.

It certainly is at odds with Wilsonian democracy, and I would add that that's definitely not a bad thing. Perhaps the Dutch historian needs to be reminded that modern, absolute democracy did not emerge because it was some objectively better arrangement, but because revolutions, wars, and political battles were fought? And that the winners did not emerge as winners because they had the objective truth or good on their side?

It seems historian Lambert Giebels wants some sort of equivalent to the Swedish Torekov monarchy. It seems he wants to do away with the regal powers with the next change of throne. That's roughly what happened in Sweden as well.

Dr. Giebels really makes the statement of the day when he supposedly says:

With a ceremonial monarchy, there's also no further need for government ministers to be responsible for what the monarch says and does. It's then up to them [the royal family] to know what is and isn't acceptable.

Oh really?!? Now, historians are supposed to know a bit about history, aren't they? Especially about the history they're commenting on. That also goes for very recent history, right? The King of Sweden has no constitutional role except for ceremonial duties, the most important of which arguably are the duty to sign and receive letters of accreditation of envoys and duties in connection with the opening of the Riksdag.

In spite of all of this, there was an uproar about statements just over 3 years ago. Do we seriously believe that a purely ceremonial Dutch monarch can say anything without politicians running to the megaphones with their complaints?

Those who run around complaining about monarchy being undemocratic won't be satisfied until every single remaining dust particle of it has been wiped into museums.

It's peculiar how one can say that it's undemocratic. It's like the waving of a magic wand. No additional arguments are needed. All the wisdom of philosophers through centuries about the vices of democracy be damned.