(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Every year the SV has carried out a ritual duty in the Storting: Proposal to introduce a republic. The representatives have never seemed to promote their mandatory proposal with particular enthusiasm. They have almost apologized for the proposal, knowing that it will routinely be voted down by an overwhelming parliamentary majority and rejected by a massive majority of people. But since the SV has established a republic, so must the annual duty run, with good mines to delete games. On the other hand, there has never been a proper debate on the monarchy and the republic in the party.
Therefore, this attempt to establish a socialist argument in favor of the kingdom. The usual argument that the monarchy has gone out of date and is old-fashioned and outdated is a typical cultural-radical argument, not socialist. The fact that the kingdom is old, medieval and feudal does not mean that it is bad, or inappropriate. The fact that an institution is old does not mean that it should be abolished.
There are many parallels between the state church debate and the monarchy debate. There are many socialist arguments for the state church, as long as it is compatible with religious freedom – and that is it, cf. Berge Furre's votum in the state church commission. (By the way, the state church is not medieval, from the feudal period, but from the monopoly period, from the new period). Those who are most eager for the free church are the conservative Christians, who want more power over the church. In a religious power analysis, it is not certain that the state church will perform worse than a free church. There may be more religious oppression if the state church is dissolved.
Who is possibly oppressed by the Norwegian monarchy is difficult to see. In that case, it had to be members of the royal house, those who were restricted their freedom and had to assume the burden of the royal role.
Parallel church monarchy is also interesting in other ways. Latin American liberation theology did not originate in modern Protestant churches or Pentecostal churches, but in the Catholic, feudal church. The Protestants and Pentacostalists (charismatics) ended up in alliance with the capitalists and landowners, while liberation theological priests became politically progressive and revolutionary, partying for the poor, the landless and the Native Americans. Socially, there was a spark from the feudal religion to Marxist politics, while from the Protestant (individualist) religion it became a capitalist policy.
In a military barracks (also the training ground for the death squads) during the Guatemalan civil war, I saw American-produced posters with the slogan "Kill a Commie for Christ," – "Kill a Communist for Christ!" A little later, the poster was replaced with a new slogan: "Kill a Padre for Christ," – "Kill a (Catholic) priest for Christ!" Landowners and the CIA paid the death squads (and army) to kill Catholic priests and nuns because they were considered liberation theologians and thus revolutionaries, who incited the Indians and poor peasants to revolt.
Both the Old Pope and the New Pope, Wojtyla and Ratzinger, were active in their anti-communism in the heresy of the liberation theology, which they believed was Marxist. John Paul II, in particular, was so anti-communist in his Polish background that he hated the Catholic liberation priests. According to the Catholic Archbishop of Guatemala City, the Pope, with his condemnation of the liberation theology, was responsible for the massacres of the army and the death squads on Catholic priests and nuns (well assisted by Ambassador Negroponte and the CIA).
In Guatemala, I heard American charismatic missionaries (in the same congregation as the "reborn" dictator Rios Montt, the worst butcher of all Guatemala's generals) defend the death squads' killing of Catholic liberation priests, because God used the squadrons to exterminate the evil ones. , who did not accept that God had made anyone rich; rulers, and some to the poor; servants. The feudal priests were thus allied with the Marxists and the guerrillas, while the "modern" charismatic Protestants were allied with the feudal lords.
The Spanish king played a crucial progressive role when Franco died and the fascists tried to regain power. The fact that Eastern European exile kings often played a reactionary political role after the war is another and sad matter.
But the Norwegian royal family has played a progressive role in supporting marginalized and oppressed groups such as the gays, Tatars, war sailors, Finnmark partisans, "German children," psychiatric patients, immigrants, etc. Princess Diana's fight against landmines and support for AIDS patients can mentioned in this context. Prince Charles' environmental protection efforts are not for the cat either.
King Haakon's role during the last war, as well as his famous "I am also the King of the Communists" are worth remembering. And especially King Olav's clear condemnation of racism and neo-Nazism has made it difficult to be an extreme nationalist in Norway. They do not get support from the foremost national symbol, the king. In this sense, it must be bitter to be a neo-Nazi in Norway, totally let down by the nation's supreme symbol.
Our form of government is "the restricted monarchy." So politically limited. If the king is to be apolitical, he / she still has important symbolic and moral power. The Norwegian royal family has used this symbolic power very wisely, and predominantly progressively. I must admit that a concrete experience has certainly contributed to my positive feelings for the monarchy. (Carl I.
The garden is right in that it is about emotions, about excitement. Also the blind hen can find a grain).
My excitement is due to the following strong experience: As a former principal, I was invited to the Nansen School's 50th anniversary in 989, in Lillehammer. The guest of honor was King Olav himself. It was a long table seat with many speeches. The student council leader also jumped up and addressed His Majesty directly with a prayer for a fellow student, a Kosovo Albanian that the UDI wanted to expel. Around the anniversary table, people began to whisper "Scandal!" So outrageously rude to attack the guest of honor with such a political case, something so rude! But there they were outraged. As the last speech, King Olav got up and clicked on the glass. First, he held his completed tribute to the humanistic jubilee. Then he kicked up the glove that was thrown from the free-spirited student council leader. Then he gave an extremely knowledgeable and well-informed overview of the procedure in such cases. He then gave an analysis and assessment of asylum cases and immigration policy, with a strong warning against all forms of racism and xenophobia, a warning he elegantly linked to the Nansen School's pioneers and the school's humanistic ideology. Finally, the king promised to raise this specific issue with his minister of state and try to contribute to a positive decision. Shortly afterwards, the message came: The Kosovo student was allowed to stay in Norway, and continue at Nansen School.
I must say I was impressed by the King's superb way of dealing with the (embarrassing) challenge, the knowledge he had and the moral authority he displayed. Carl I. Hagen as president would surely have done a worse job.
That the monarchy as a feudal institution can function progressively should not surprise. A remarkable number of leaders in the labor movement in Europe came from noble, aristocratic families. It is also interesting to look at the aristocratic family background of Sweden's murdered heroes: Dag Hammarskjöld, Raoul Wallenberg, Folke Bernadotte and Olof Palme. Each in its own way, the four heroes did an important progressive deed, with life as an effort. Should we get a republic in Norway, I would like a personality of Hammarskjöld's casting. He was a Christian mystic, an aristocrat from a civilian family, but he fought in the Congo against the colonial powers of England and Belgium (and their lackey Chombe) and was perhaps murdered by agents of an imperialist economy.
In socialism there is an important element of (value) conservatism, with the protection of traditional common values, against the modernization and individualization of capitalism Monarchy is such a worthy common value. A tradition of national unity may be important to protect against the leveling modernization and liberalization of global capitalism.
This presupposes, of course, that the members of the royal family make wise choices and use a healthy social instinct, as the Norwegian royal family actually does. Then we can also in the future get a head of state who is also "the king of the socialists." And the Crown Princess has symbolized dignity for both single mothers, drug users and psychiatric patients, as Bishop Stålsett emphasized in his wedding speech. While the Crown Prince, for his part, does not make it easy to be a Christian homophobic in Norway. Great!
As a progressive moral force and symbol of national unity, the Norwegian monarchy is well worth preserving. We can always use the inherent radicalism of socialism in other areas.
