Dominion

Dominion (pronounced duh-min-yon)

(1) The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

(2) Rule; control; domination; predominance; ascendancy.

(3) A territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single ruler-ship holds sway (used sometimes figuratively).

(4) Lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

(5) In political science, a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire.  Formerly applied to self-governing former colonies of the British Empire; Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and later, others.

(6) In law, a rare (probably archaic) alternative spelling of dominium.

(7) In taxonomy, kingdom.

(8) A specialized classification in theology; in biblical scholarship, an order of angel in Christian angelology, ranked above virtues and below thrones.

Mid 1400s: From the Middle English dominion (lordship, sovereign or supreme authority), from the Middle & Old French dominion (rule, power), from the Medieval Latin dominionem (nominative dominio) or dominium (lordship, right of ownership), from dominus (lord, master), corresponding to dominium (property, ownership) from domus (house) from the primitive Indo-European root dem (house, household).  The meaning "territory or people subject to a specific government” dates from the 1510s, the specific legal meaning at law “power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal" was codified by the 1650s.  In law, dominion was used from the 1510s to refer to (a territory or people subject to a specific government or control) and in the law of real property, from the 1650s assumed the meaning "power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal".

British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, Dominion Day, the Canadian national holiday in celebration of the union, and “Old Dominion”, the popular name for the US state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.  Dominions are best remembered as the quasi-independent nations under the British Crown, constituting the part of the British Empire best remembered as “the white dominions” or, later, “the white commonwealth”.  Canada was the first, declared in 1867 and Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa followed.  Later additions included the Irish Free State and the states of the old Raj, India, East and West Pakistan, and Ceylon.  The Balfour (Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour), 1848–1930, UK prime-minister 1902-1905; Lord President of the Council 1925-1929) Declaration of 1926 recognized the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be "...autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." and the Statute of Westminster (1931), in what was the first general enactment for the constitution of the British Empire since Lord North's (later Lord Guilford, 1732–1792; GB prime-minister 1770-1782) regulating act of 1778, granted them what was close to legislative independence.

The word dominion was earlier used to refer to a geographically-defined political entity without legal status mentioned above.  Wales was thus described between 1535-1801 and New England between 1686-1689.  It was also the popular name for the US state of Virginia, the use first recorded in 1778.  While never bothering fully to define the status, the covenant of the League of Nations made provision for the admission of any “fully self-governing state, Dominion, or Colony”, the implication being that Dominion status was something between that of a colony and a state.  That certainly reflected British Empire practice.

Flag of Canada, adopted 1965.

Canada, officially still uses the title though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created such a dominion by passing into law the British North America Act which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.  It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next major event in 1982 when the structurally significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).

Canada, officially still uses the title “Dominion of Canada”, though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created the dominion by passing into law the British North America Act (1967) which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.

It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next structural event in 1982 when the significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).  In this context the difference between "patriation" & “repatriation” was merely political, lawyers agreeing there was no technical point to be argued but as a symbolic gesture, it appealed to politicians who wished to make the point that the Canadian constitution was, for the first time, fully to be in Canadian hands.  Prior to the 1982 act, the process to amend the constitution required the parliament in Ottawa to request the parliament in Westminster to give effect to the change; the United Kingdom assembly thus still functioning as an imperial parliament.  This was the arrangement which prevailed upon the granting of dominion statue in 1867 and while the 1931 Statute of Westminster (limiting the circumstances win which the British Parliament's could legislate for Canada) and the 1949 British North America (No 2) Act (granting the (federal) parliament in Ottawa significant authority to amend the constitution) did render Canada de facto independence, the device of needing to refer major amendments to London remained.

The retention of this authority in London was not the choice of the colonial oppressors, successive British governments having offered to expedite any (patriative or repatriative as preferred; repatriate from the Latin repatriare, the construct being re- (back, backwards, again) + patria (homeland) and cognate to repair (to return)) request from the Canadian parliament, but rather the inability of the politicians in Ottawa to secure the agreement of the politicians in Quebec City about the exact model of any locally-held authority.  In one of the charming quirks which emerged as the decolonization processes of the twentieth century unfolded, the view, rightly or wrongly, of the French-speaking politicians in Quebec was that the UK politicians would be less likely to make changes disadvantageous to them than would other Canadian politicians.

In the end, despite decades of discussion, debate and dissent, unanimous agreement between the federal and provincial governments proved impossible to secure and it was announced by Ottawa that regardless of that, the request would be made unilaterally to patriate the constitution from Britain.  Several provinces challenged that in the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges (in something of an echo of the prevailing view about the circumstance of the 1975 dismissal of an Australian prime-minister in 1975) ruled that provincial consent was not a legal necessity although “substantial consent” by the provincial assemblies was a longstanding constitutional convention.  As it turned out, with a small legislative tweak, the Canadian prime-minister was able to obtain the agreement of nine of the ten provinces, thereby presumably satisfying both spirit and letter.

In Westminster, a few MPs took advantage of the situation to do a bit of virtue-signaling and generally practice the politics of “warm inner glow” by voting against the Canada Act (1982) claiming to be concerned about Canada’s prior treatment of Quebec and its indigenous peoples.  The UK government however, although concerned about a couple of technical points, quickly passed the act and from that point, Canada became wholly independent, the position of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state an entirely personal relationship with the Canadian government with no connection to the government of the UK.  Presumably to try to show the people of Canada something had happened, the name of the Dominion Day national holiday was changed to Canada Day.

King George V with prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Back row: WS Monroe (Newfoundland), JG Coates (New Zealand), SM Bruce (Australia), JBM Hertzog (South Africa) and WT Cosgrave (Irish Free State).  Front row: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, Mackenzie King (Canada).

Creating some confusion, which they seem often to have enjoyed, the Colonial Office referred to all the Empire’s possessions as dominions (with a small d) while those with a capital D were the Dominions (Australia, NZ et al) proper.  Thus all Dominions were dominions but not all dominions were Dominions.  How the Foreign Office must have envied the pedantry.  

Dylan Thomas’ poem And Death Shall Have No Dominion recalls Romans 6:9 (King James translation) “death hath no more dominion”.

And death shall have no dominion.

Dead man naked they shall be one

With the man in the wind and the west moon;

When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,

They shall have stars at elbow and foot;

Though they go mad they shall be sane,

Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;

Though lovers be lost love shall not;

And death shall have no dominion.

 

And death shall have no dominion.

Under the windings of the sea

They lying long shall not die windily;

Twisting on racks when sinews give way,

Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;

Faith in their hands shall snap in two,

And the unicorn evils run them through;

Split all ends up they shan't crack;

And death shall have no dominion.

 

And death shall have no dominion.

No more may gulls cry at their ears

Or waves break loud on the seashores;

Where blew a flower may a flower no more

Lift its head to the blows of the rain;

Though they be mad and dead as nails,

Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;

Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,

And death shall have no dominion.

Mandamus

Mandamus (pronounced man-dey-muhs)

At common law, an order of a superior court or officer commanding (an inferior tribunal, public official, or organ of the state) a specific thing be done.  Formerly a writ, now issued as an order.

1530-1535:  From Middle English, a borrowing from the late fourteenth century Anglo-French, from the Latin mandāmus (we order (which were printed as the opening words of a writ of mandamus), first person plural present indicative of mandāre (to order).

Some writs

A mandamus was a writ compelling a court or government official correctly to perform that which the law required; for technical reasons it’s now issued as an order rather than a writ.  It’s one of a number of procedures called the prerogative writs, an evolutionary fork of the common law which ensured courts could compel governments to adhere to the law.  These devices constitute the means by which the rule of law is maintained and, because of the intent, a mandamus must follow black-letter law.  If a law says a minister must review something, the court can force only the review and cannot instruct what the finding should be.  The use is now generally limited to cases of complaint someone having an interest in the performance of a public duty, when effectual relief against its neglect cannot be had in the course of an ordinary action.

There are other mechanisms in this class.  The subpoena duces tecum (order for production of evidence) is a summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.  It’s similar to the subpoena ad testificandum (summoning a witness orally to testify) but differs in that it requires the production of physical evidence.  The literal translation was "under threat of punishment, you will bring it with you", the construct being sub (under) + poena (penalty) + duces (you will bring) + te (you) + cum (with).  Habeas corpus in the Medieval Latin meant literally "that you have the body".  It provides recourse in law by which a person can report an unlawful detention to a court and request the court order those holding the person to bring the prisoner before a court so it might decide whether the imprisonment is lawful; it is best understood in modern use as "bring us the body".  The quo warranto, which in Medieval Latin was literally "by what warrant?" required a person to show the court by what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold.  A prohibito (literally "prohibited") directed the stopping of something the law prohibits.  A procedendo, from Medieval Latin in the sense of the meanings “proceed; prosecute”, was a writ sending a case from an appellate court to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment and was also the writ by which the suspended commission of a justice of the peace was revived.  A writ of certiorari was a request for judicial review of the findings or conduct of an inferior court, tribunal, or other public authority ands in its pure form it existed by right, not by leave of the court.  The Medieval Latin was certiorārī (volumus), a literal “we wish to be informed".  Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin verbs certioro, certiorare (to inform, apprise, show).

William Marbury (left) & James Madison (right).  Marbury's former house in Georgetown, Washington DC is now the Ukrainian Embassy to the United States.

Marbury v Madison (5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)) was the US Supreme Court case which established the principle of judicial review in the United States, the consequence being US courts have the power to strike down laws they find to violate the US Constitution; it’s thus regarded as the single most important decision in US constitutional law, establishing that the constitution, although a foundation political document, is also actual law and thus the country’s basic law.  It was this decision which made possible the enforcement of the separation of powers between the federal government’s executive and judicial branches.

The case had an unlikely origin in a political squabble which sounds remarkably modern.  John Adams (1735–1826; US president 1797-1801) had lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826; US president 1801-1809) and in March 1801, two days before his term ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to judicial offices, intending to sabotage the Democratic-Republican Party’s incoming administration.  A compliant Senate confirmed the appointments with a haste which would seem now extraordinary but the outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall (1755–1835; US secretary of state 1800-1801 & chief justice 1801-1835) did not deliver all of the papers of commission before Jefferson's inauguration, thus encouraging the new president to declare them void.  One undelivered commission was that of William Marbury (1762–1835) and in late 1801, after Madison had more than once declined to deliver his commission, Marbury filed suit in the Supreme Court requesting the issue of a writ of mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the papers.

The court’s judgement was handed down by John Marshall, now the chief justice.  The court held that (1) the president’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal and (2) in those circumstances a competent court would order the official in question to deliver the commission.  However, despite the facts of Marbury v Madison, no writ of mandamus was issue, the rationale being that upon examining the law with which Congress had granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction in such matters, the legislature had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond that which was specified in the constitution.  The Court then struck down that section of the law, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws they find violate the Constitution.  The finding in Marbury v Madison was the origin of judicial review in the US.

Forrest-Marbury House, 3350 M Street NW, Georgetown, Washington DC, once the home of William Marbury.  It was in this house on 29 March 1791 that George Washington (1732–1799; president of the US 1789-1797) negotiated the real-estate deal for the land that would become Washington DC.  Since 1992, it has been the chancery of the Embassy of Ukraine.

Prerogative

Prerogative (pronounced pri-rog-uh-tiv)

(1) An exclusive right, privilege, etc., exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like; having a hereditary or official right or privilege.

(2) A right, privilege, etc., limited to a specific person or to persons of a particular category.

(3) A power, immunity, or the like restricted to a sovereign government or its representative.

(4) Characterized by lawless state actions (refers to the prerogative state)

(5) Precedence (obsolete).

(6) A property, attribute or ability which gives one a superiority or advantage over others; an inherent advantage or privilege; a talent.

(7) In constitutional law, a right or power exclusive to a head of state (often derived from the original powers of a monarch) or their nominee exercising delegated authority, especially the powers to appoint or dismiss executive governments.

1350-1400: From the Anglo-Norman noun prerogatif, from the Old French prerogative, from the Latin praerogātīva (previous verdict; claim, privilege), noun use of the feminine singular of praerogātīvus (having first vote; privileged), in Anglo-Latin as prerogativa from late thirteenth century.  The origin lay in a statute in the civil law of Ancient Roman which granted precedence to the tribus, centuria (an assembly of one-hundred voters who, by lot, voted first in the Roman comita).  The law guaranteed them a praerogātīvus (chosen to vote first) derived from praerogere (ask before others).  The construct of praerogere was prae (before) + rogare (to ask, ask a favor), apparently a figurative use of a primitive Indo-European verb meaning literally "to stretch out (the hand)" from the root reg- (move in a straight line).  In Middle English, the meaning "an innate faculty or property which especially distinguishes someone or something" was added.  The alternative spelling prærogative is long obsolete.

The royal prerogative and the reserve powers of the crown

The royal prerogative is the body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity and the means by which (some of) the executive powers of government are exercised in the governance of the state.  These powers are recognized in common law and in a few civil law jurisdictions are held to vest wholly in the sovereign alone, even if exercised through either appointees (of which governors, governors-general & viceroys are the most-known) constitutional government.  In the narrowest sense of technical theory, the recognition of the personal powers of a sovereign exists in most common law systems where the concept is relevant but has long since mostly been reduced to legal fiction and. in most constitutional monarchies, almost all individual prerogatives have been abolished by parliaments.  Some republican heads of state also possess similar powers but they tend to be constitutionally defined and subject to checks and balances.  A notable exception to this is a US president’s un-trammeled right to grant pardons to those convicted of offences under federal law and that’s interesting because it’s the only power in the US Constitution not subject to a check or balance.  A US president thus personally continues to exercise a prerogative in a way a British monarch (or their appointees as governors & governors-general), from whom the power is derived, no longer can.

In Britain, prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch (at least in theory and the role of the Church needs also to be noted) acting alone but from after the Magna Carta (1215), there had to be sought the consent of others and this ultimately became parliamentary consent granted to an executive (exercising powers derived from the absolute authority of the monarch) responsible to the parliament.  This took centuries to evolve and eventually meant, in practical terms, the king got the money he needed for his wars and other ventures in exchange for the parliament getting his signature to pass the laws they wanted. 

In Australia, the royal prerogative is limited (but not defined) by the constitution and those powers which vest a monarch’s authority in a governor-general don’t alter the nature of the prerogative, only its detail; the prerogative is exercised by the governor-general but only on the advice of “their” ministers.  The most obvious exception to this is the reserve power of the monarch (and there are those who doubt whether this still exists in the UK) to dismiss a government enjoying the confidence of the lower house of parliament.  In the UK, it’s not been done since William IV (1765–1837; King of the United Kingdom 1830-1837) dismissed Lord Melbourne (1779–1848; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1834 & 1835–1841) in 1834 (some dispute that, saying it was more of a gentleman’s agreement and the last termination was actually that of Lord North (1732–1792; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1770-1782) by George III (1738–1820) King of Great Britain 1760-1820) in 1782) but Australia has seen two twentieth-century sackings; that in 1932 of NSW premier Jack Lang (1876–1975; Premier of New South Wales 1925-1927 & 1930-1932) by Governor Sir Philip Game (1876–1961; Governor of NSW 1930-1935) and, in 1975, when governor-general Sir John Kerr (1914–1991; Governor-General of Australia 1974-1977) sundered Gough Whitlam’s (1916–2014; Prime Minister of Australia 1972-1975) commission.

The 1975 business provoked much academic discussion of the reserve powers but the most lucid read remains Dr HV Evatt’s (1894–1965; ALP leader 1951-1960) book from decades earlier: The King and His Dominion Governors.   Evatt’s (1936) volume was published a hundred odd-years after William IV sacked Melbourne and is useful because in that century there had been more than a few disputes about reserve powers.  Evatt’s central point was that the powers exist but proper rules by which they may be exercised are by no means clear.  The legal power is vested in the governor as the representative of the monarch and when it may properly be used depends on usage and convention.  It seems therefore scarcely possible to say confidently of any case when the Crown has intervened that its intervention was or was not correct for the only standard of correctness in each episode is its consistency with episodes of a similar character, none of which in themselves lay down any principle in law.  Further, Evatt notes, in looking to precedent, support for almost any view can be found in the authorities.  Lofty theoretical purity is also not helpful.  The view the sovereign automatically acts in all matters in accordance with the advice of his ministers rests entirely upon assertion and, Evatt observed, the reserve powers are still, on occasion, properly exercisable and that the Sovereign or his representative may have to exercise a real discretion.  Given that, it really might be impossible that the prerogative could be codified in a document which envisages all possible political or other circumstances.  Evatt nevertheless argued the principles which should guide a sovereign should be defined and made clear by statute.

Nor is practical political reality all that much help, however satisfactory an outcome may prove.  What the exercise of the reserve powers, both in 1932 and 1975, did was enable impasses described, however erroneously as constitutional crises to be resolved by an election, rather than other means.  The result of an election however does not conclude the matter for the correctness of the sovereign's action is not measured by his success as a prophet, any post-facto endorsement by the electorate having not even an indirect bearing on the abstract question of constitutionality.

Dr HV Evatt in his office at the UN.  Although variously a high court judge, attorney-general, foreign minister, opposition leader and Chief Justice of NSW, all he asked for on his gravestone was President of the United Nations, noting his service as president of the general assembly (1948-1949).

Evatt’s core argument therefore is that reserve powers should be subject to the normal and natural process of analysis, definition and reduction to the rules of positive law, which, by 1936, had in some places been done.  Evatt considered section 33(10) of the Western Nigerian constitution which codified things thus: The Governor shall not remove the Premier from office unless it appears to him that the Premier no longer commands the support or a majority of the members of the House of Assembly.  Other sections went on to detail the mechanisms of the exercise of the power, thereby attempting to do exactly what Evatt suggests.  However, the Nigerian example is discussed by Evatt not in the abstract but because the exercise of the power under the constitution became a matter of dispute and the case proceeded though the courts, finally ending up before the Privy Council as Adegbenro v. Akintola (1963 AC 614), an indication even the most explicit codification can remain an imperfect solution.

Dynasty

Dynasty (pronounced dahy-nuh-stee (US English); din-uh-stee (UK English)

(1) A sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group.

(2) The rule of such a sequence.

(3) A series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success in business, wealth creation etc.

(4) In sport, a team or organization which has an extended period of success or dominant performance (technically unrelated to family links or even and great continuity in personnel).

(5) As used specifically in East Asian history, the polity or historical era under the rule of a certain dynasty.

1425-1475: From the Middle English dynastia, from the Middle French dynastie, from the Late Latin dynastia, from the Ancient Greek δυναστεία (dunasteía) (power, dominion, lordship, sovereignty) from dynasthai (have power), of unknown origin.  The adjective dynastic (from 1800) is used when speaking or, relating to or pertaining to a dynasty; dynastical attested since 1730.  A dynast (hereditary ruler) is from the 1630s, from the Late Latin dynastes, from the Greek dynastes (ruler, chief, lord, master).  Synonyms include house & lineage.  Dynasty & dynast are nouns, dynastic & dynastical are adjectives and dynastically is an adverb; the noun plural is dynasties.

The word is widely used of the ruling families of nations associated with royalty (Hapsburg dynasty, Romanov dynasty, Hohenzollern dynasty) and remains the standard term in the historiography of Imperial China (Ming dynasty, Qing dynasty, Song dynasty, Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty).  In political science it’s a popular use (verging on a slur) to describe the political arrangements concocted when a ruler attempts (sometimes with success) to pass the office (and thus their country) to a descendent (usually the eldest or most demonstrably ruthless son), examples including the Congo, Syria and Cambodia.  Sometimes, polities organized in this manner can give rise to what is known as a subdynasty (which seems never to hyphenated), an idea borrowed from European history when royal families routinely would provide offspring to serve as kings of other states, thereby creating a new dynasty; sometimes this worked well, sometimes not.

In politics, families which some characterize as appearing dynastic can be very sensitive to anything which seems even to hint at the suggestion and the Lee family in Singapore is the standard case study.  Between the rule of Lee Kuan Yew (1923–2015; prime minister of Singapore 1959-1990) and that of his son Lee Hsien Loong (b 1952; Prime Minister of Singapore since 2004) there was gap of over a dozen years (which must not be called an interregnum) and of some interest is whether a similar mechanism will be engineered to enable a third generation to assume office, the previous successor designate having been removed from the plan because of “some unsuitability”.  According to commentators, this means Mr Lee has decided to delay his retirement so a “long runway” is provided on which the next prime minister can emerge (Mr Lee presumably thinking of “runway” in the modern sense of the “catwalk” on which models strut their stuff rather than anything to do with aviation).

While Li Hongyi (b 1987; first-born child of Lee Hsien Loong), has disavowed any interest in a political career, there’s still plenty of time and if, in the fullness of time, “drafted” by the ruling PAP (the People’s Action Party which has been in power since independence in 1959), he may feel it his duty to be “be persuaded”.  Li Hongyi however may simply believe his lineage is too great a disadvantage to overcome.  Earlier, Lee Hsien Loong dismissed suggestions his stellar career (becoming at becoming at 32 the youngest brigadier-general in the history of the Singapore military and prime minister at 53) owed anything to family connections, claiming being the prime minister’s son actually hindered him because people were so anxious to avoid accusations of favoritism.  Interestingly, entertainment personality Kylie Jenner (b 1997) made much the point, claiming it was belonging to a famous family which saw her denied some modelling work.  The Lee family though do seem unusually sensitive to suggestions the scions might unduly benefit from the connection, the Financial Times in 2007 even having to apologize for having published not anything libellous (actually easily done in Singapore) but simply a list of Lee family members in high positions in the island nation.  The current derogatory slang is “nepo baby”, a clipping of nepotism baby, a term one is unlikely to read in the Singaporean press.

Kim I, II & III: The Kim Dynasty, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, aka North Korea)

Kim I: Kim Il-sung (1912-1994; The Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994 (left).  Like his descendants, The Dear Leader and The Supreme Leader, The Great Leader enjoyed food.  He’s pictured here at lunch with another foodie, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) (right).

Kim Il-sung held an array of titles during his decades as the DPRK’s dictator, the proliferation not unusual in communist nations where the ruling party’s structures are maintained alongside the formal titles of state with which a nation maintains relations with the rest of the world.  In office for a notable forty five years he was designated premier (head of government) between 1948-1972 and president 1972-1994.  He was head of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) between 1949- 1994, and in that role was styled as chairman 1949-1966 and general secretary after 1966.  During his forty-five year rule, there were ten US presidents, six South Korean presidents, nine British prime ministers and ten Australian prime ministers.  He tenure in office also spanned the time of the USSR from its apotheosis under Comrade Stalin to its collapse in 1991. 

Being dead however proved no obstacle to The Great Leader extending his presidency, the collective office “Eternal leaders of Juche Korea” (Chuch'ejosŏnŭi yŏngwŏnhan suryŏng) created in 2016 by the insertion of an enabling line in the preamble to the constitution.  What this amendment did was formalise the position of The Great Leader and his late son Comrade Kim Jong Il (The Dear Leader) as the “eternal leaders” of the DPRK.  Juche is the term used to describe the DPRK’s national philosophy, a synthesis of The Great Leader’s interpretation of (1) Korean tradition and (2) Marxist-Leninist theory.

Funeral of The Great Leader, 1994.

It was an interesting move.  Technically, the office of president was constitutionally established only in 1972.  Prior to that, the role of head of state had been purely ceremonial and held by respected party functionaries, all power exercised by The Great Leader in his capacity as premier and general secretary of the WPK.  So tied to the legend of The Great Leader was the office of president that upon his death in 1994, the position was left vacant, The Dear Leader not granted the title.  That nuance of succession for a while absorbed the interest of the DPRK watchers but attempts to invest the move with any significance abated as DPRK business, though in the more straitened circumstances of the post Soviet world, continued as usual.

The constitution was again revised in 1998.  Being a godless communist state, no fine theological points stood in the way of declaring The Great Leader the DPRK’s "Eternal President", the latest addition to the preamble declaring:

Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic.

The constitution in its 2012, promulgated after the death of The Dear Leader, again referred to The Great Leader as "eternal President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but, in 2016, The Dear Leader, having apparently been dead for a decent duration, another amendment to the preamble changed the administrative nomenclature of executive eternity to "eternal leaders of Juche Korea", the honor now jointly held by the leaders great & dear.  It was another first for the Kims.

Kim II: Kim Jong-il (1941–2011; The Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea), 1994-2011).  Pictured here admiring a vegetable, The Dear Leader is accompanied by a general.  DPRK generals wear big hats and always carry a notebook in case the closest Kim says something.  They write it down.

As a construct, the DPRK is best thought of a hereditary theocracy.  Although opaque, its dynamics are now better understood but when The Great Leader died in 1994, neither within the country nor beyond was it widely understood how much of the power structure he controlled had passed to The Dear Leader.  Although the economic circumstances of 1994 were hardly propitious, there seems to have been little doubt about the formal succession, The Dear Leader having been anointed for more than a decade.  The DPRK’s media operation, while not in the conventional sense having a middle class to be made “quite prepared”, had the rest of the country to work on and The Dear Leader was gradually eased into photo opportunities with The Great Leader, eventually making even solo appearances, sometimes in the role of Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army to which he’s been appointed in 1991, despite having no military experience, although, given the minimal battlefield exposure of most of the generals, this might have been less of a problem than it appears.

Perhaps now aware of his own mortality, The Great Leader spent some of the time in the years before his death clearing the decks for the succession, purging the military and civilian ranks of any difficult types who might prove obstacles to The Dear Leader’s ascent.  Some apparently died but it may have been a coincidence; constitutionally the DPRK may be a theocracy but its military and political elite are gerontocracies.  The path was smoothed and, the military command settled, in 1992, The Great Leader announced The Dear Leader was in charge of all the DPRK’s internal affairs.  Curiously, shortly after that, the media began using the honorific “Dear Father” instead of “Dear Leader” but for whatever reason, all official communications soon reverted to the original title and there’s never been any explanation.

Despite all the dynastic help, the indications are it took The Dear Leader sometime fully to assert his authority.  Seriously weird it may appear but, the WPK is just another political party and they all have factions and, in the difficult post-Soviet environment of the 1994 succession, it seems there were genuine discussions within the party about how to deal with the economic problems the DPRK faced.  It frankly didn’t go well but while The Dear Leader may not have learned much economic theory, he proved adept at consolidating his power, adopting the Songun (military first) policy of North Korea, granting the military priority in resource allocation and political influence, not out of any concern about foreign invasion but to ensure the loyalty of what was, in effect, a giant police force to protect the Kim dynasty from a revolt of the people.  Secure in office, The Dear Leader did spasmodically attempt economic reforms but the results were not impressive.

Planning the dynasty: The Dear Leader shaking hands with Japanese-born singer Ko Yong-hui (1952-2004; aka Takada Hime) circa 1972.  She became his consort and would later give birth to Kim III (later The Supreme Leader).  Within the DPRK, her name must never be spoken and she's referred to only by honorific forms, the most commonly use of which is: “The Respected Mother who is the Most Faithful and Loyal 'Subject' to the Dear Leader Comrade Supreme Commander”.

By 1997, he was sufficiently entrenched to engineer his appointment to The Great Leader’s old post as General Secretary of the WPK and a year later, a constitutional amendment declared his role as chairman of the National Defence Commission was "the highest post of the state", presumably among those still alive because the same constitutional reform abolished the office of president and proclaimed The Great Leader to be the DPRK’s "Eternal President".  The year after The Dear Leader’s death in 2011, the constitution was amended to declare him Eternal General Secretary of the WPK and Eternal Chairman of the National Defence Commission.  In 2016, after a decent period of mourning, the new title "Eternal Leaders of Juche Korea" was created and granted to both the Great Leader & Dear Leader.

US actor Elizabeth Gillies (b 1993) appeared as Fallon Carrington on in the television drama Dynasty (2017–2022), a revival of the 1980s soap opera; it was shown in the US on the CW Television Network (episodes streamed internationally on Netflix the next day).  She appeared (far left) in Ariana Grande's (b 1993) music video Thank U, Next (2019), taking the part of Lindsay Lohan in the segment which was a homage to Mean Girls (2004).  While not technically a doppelganger, the degree of resemblance was sufficient for the concept to work.

The reputation of the DPRK as a hermit state cloaked in secrecy is undeserved because there is an official biography of The Dear Leader and from his birth, he was amazing.  He was born inside a log cabin beneath Korea’s most sacred mountain and in the moment of delivery, a shooting star brought forth a spontaneous change from winter to summer and there appeared in the sky, a double rainbow.  The Dear Leader was not subject to bowel movements, never needing to defecate or urinate although it’s not known if this is a genetic characteristic of the dynasty and therefore enjoyed also by The Supreme Leader.  He had a most discriminating palette so The Dear Leader employed staff to inspect every grain of rice by hand to ensure each piece was of uniform length, plumpness, and color, The Dear Leader eating only perfectly-sized rice.  Although he only ever played one round of golf and that on the country’s notoriously difficult 7,700 yard (7040 m) course at Pyongyang, he took only 34 strokes to complete the 18 holes, a round which included five holes-in-ones.  Experienced golfers have cast doubt on the round of 34 (not commenting on the holes-in-one) but the diet of individually inspected & polished grains of rice was thought "at least plausible".  

Funeral of The Dear Leader, 2011.

The car is a 1975 or 1976 Lincoln Continental, built by Moloney Standard Coach Builders on an extended wheelbase.  Lincoln experts say it's a different car to the similar model used in The Great Leader's funeral, the dynasty said to own several and it's believed they were obtained "through sources in Japan".  Uniquely, the Kin dynasty is the only only family said also to own a brace of Mercedes-Benz 600s (M100; 1963-1981) long-roof Landaulets, only twelve of which were built.  Fittingly, the long-roof variants are known casually as the "presidentials" but the factory never officially used the designation.  

The Kims certainly build personality cults but it’s not only the North Koreans who create retrospective honours to acknowledge the uniqueness of a special individual.  George Washington (1732-1799) will forever be the first President of the United States (POTUS) so that’s fine but he retired from the army as a lieutenant general and later appointments of some to more senior ranks bothered some in the military, concerned his primacy in the hierarchy wasn’t adequately honoured.  The later appointments had been (1) Ulysses S Grant (1822–1885) created General of the Army in 1866, (2) John Pershing (1860–1948) appointed General of the Armies in 1919 and (3) nine of the World War II (1939-1945) generals and admirals who were appointed to the newly formalised five star rank as Generals of the Army and Fleet Admirals respectively.  Where Washington stood in this potpourri of stars and titles wasn’t clear until 1978 when, after years of discussions of the difficulties inherent in solving the problem, in a surprisingly simple act of internal Army administration, Washington posthumously was promoted to General of the Armies of the United States, making him eternally the US military’s most senior officer.

Kim III: Kim Jong-un (b circa 1982; The Supreme Leader (originally The Great Successor) of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).  The Supreme Leader is pictured here with South Korean foreign minister, Chung Eui-yong (b 1946).

Inheriting the family business at a much younger age than The Dear Leader, The Supreme Leader, didn’t benefit (or suffer) from the long public gestation period his father was provided by The Great Leader.  It was in 2009, about two years before The Dear Leader’s death that the media began reporting the youngest son, was to be the DPRK’s next leader although at that stage, he was referred to as The Brilliant Comrade, the honorific The Great Successor not adopted until after The Dear Leader’s death and it was soon replaced by The Supreme Leader.  For whatever reason, and the speculation and conspiracy theories are many, Kim III more quickly assumed his panoply of offices and titles than his immediate ancestor.  

Announced on state television as The Great Successor, The Supreme Leader was appointed General Secretary of the WPK, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and President of the State Affairs Commission, followed soon afterwards by a promotion to the army’s highest military rank, Marshal of the Korean People's Army, adding to his position as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (exactly the same constitutional arrangement adopted by Hitler as commander-in-chief of both OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres (High Command of the Army)) and OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces)).  Great minds do think alike.  Confusingly, having already morphed from The Brilliant Comrade to The Great Successor to The Supreme Leader, references also appeared calling him The Dear Respected Leader but thankfully the proliferation seems now to have stopped.  In office, he has pursued 병진 (byungjin (literally "parallel development")), a refinement of The Great Leader’s policy simultaneously to develop both the economy and the military, his particular emphasis in the latter a focus on nuclear weapons and inter-continental delivery systems.  It may be an attempt to avoid the problems inherent in the “Waffen und Butter” (guns and butter) programme pursued by the Nazi regime (despite the international perception) as late as the first three years of World War II (1939-1945).

Although Kim III is no longer referred to as The Great Successor, there have been great successes.  Despite Western propaganda, there are elections in the DPRK and when The Supreme Leader sought a seat in the Supreme People's Assembly, there was a record turnout of voters and he received 100% of the votes cast.  Although it’s hard to determine the veracity of many of the reports, it’s suggested he’s an innovator in matters of military discipline, new methods used by firing squads said to include flame throwers, and anti-aircraft cannons, both said to make quite a mess although it's difficult to know how high is the body count, some reported executed later turning up alive and well.  Worth a mention though is the assassination in 2017 of his exiled half-brother Kim Jong-nam (1971-2017), killed with the nerve agent VX while walking through Kuala Lumpur International Airport, a novel twist on the extra-judicial execution being the use of two aspiring starlets to deliver the VX; they believed they were being filmed as part of a reality TV show. Most celebrated has been the nuclear programme and the increasingly bigger and longer-range missiles paraded from time to time.  Underground nuclear tests being hard to monitor, it remains unclear whether the devices tested are the long de rigueur plutonium weapons or, for the first time since the one-off A-Bomb used in Hiroshima in 1945, made using uranium.  Most recently, state media has announced the complete success in avoiding COVID-19 with no cases reported in the republic so, on any basis of calculation, The Supreme Leader has supervised the most successful COVID-19 strategy on Earth.

The Supreme Leader has also drawn the interest of the pro ana community because of his remarkable weight loss.  Whether his motivation was (1) concerns about his health, being a bit chubby, (2) a wish to look more sexy and attractive to younger women or (3) display some solidarity with his subjects, many of whom were suffering food shortages, his weight-loss regime has been a success, experts estimating, on the basis of photographic evidence, that he has probably shed up to 25-30 kg (65-80 lb).  This is good but has created a problem for the small number of people in the entertainment business who work as as Kim Jong-il impersonators, some of who have sought guidance from the pro ana community.  For security reasons, The Supreme Leader is known also to employ body doubles and it's not known if they're currently being starved or have already been shot and replaced with thinner models.  

After the weight loss he seems in such rude good health that, still not forty, there’s no reason he may not rule perhaps even longer than his grandfather’s forty-five years.  Ever since the demise of the USSR in 1991, analysts have been predicting the imminent demise of the communist regimes in both Pyongyang and Havana but they seem to muddle through, the DPRK of late enjoying new sources of foreign exchange, branching out from industrial-scale drug production and the smuggling of oil and minerals to the new field of cybercrime; even in the niche market of fake news they're said to run a small operation.

Voice

Voice (pronounced vois)

(1) The sound made by the vibration of the vocal cords, especially when modified by the resonant effect of the tongue and mouth; the sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures, especially of human beings in speaking, shouting, singing etc.

(2) The faculty or power of uttering sounds through the mouth by the controlled expulsion of air; speech.

(3) A range of such sounds to some extent distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal.

(4) The condition or effectiveness of the voice for speaking or singing (usually expressed in the phrases “in good voice” or “in poor voice” (although “in good voice” is also used sarcastically to refer to someone merely talkative or voluble).

(5) A sound likened to or resembling vocal utterance.

(6) Something likened to speech as conveying impressions to the mind (voice of the forest etc).

(7) Expression in spoken or written words, or by other means (to give voice); that which is communicated; message; meaning.

(8) The right to present and receive consideration of one's desires or opinions (usually in a political context, “the voice of the people” said to be expressed by voting in elections).

(9) An expressed opinion or choice (literally, electorally or behaviorally); an expressed will or desire, wish or injunction (“with one voice” meaning unanimous).

(10) The person or other agency through which something is expressed or revealed such as the notion of the Roman Catholic Pope being the “Vicar of Christ on Earth” and thus “The voice of God”.

(11) A warning that proved to be the voice of prophecy.

(12) In music, a substitute word which can apply to a singer, a voice part or that part of musical score which involves singing and (in harmony) an independent melodic line or parta fugue in five voices.

(13) In phonetics, the audible result of phonation and resonance; to pronounce with glottal vibration (and distinguished from the mere breath sounds heard in whispering and voiceless consonants).

(14) In grammar, a set of categories for which the verb is inflected in some languages (notably Latin) and which is typically used to indicate the relation of the verbal action to the subject as performer, under-goer, or beneficiary of its action; a particular way of inflecting or conjugating verbs, or a particular form of a verb, by means of which is indicated the relation of the subject of the verb to the action which the verb expresses.

(15) In grammar, a set of syntactic devices in some languages, as English, that is similar to this set in function; any of the categories of these sets (eg the English passive voice; the Greek middle voice).

(16) In the tuning of musical instruments, the finer regulation (expressed usually as intensity, color or shades of light), used especially of the piano and organ.

(17) To give utterance or expression to; declare; proclaim (“to voice one’s approval”, “to voice one’s discontent” etc).

(18) In sign languages, the interpretation into spoken language.

(19) In computers. of or relating to the use of human or synthesized speech (as voice to text, text to voice, voice-data entry; voice output, voice command etc).

(20) In telecommunications, of or relating to the transmission of speech or data over media designed for the transmission of speech (in classifications such as voice-grade channel, voice-data network, voice-activated, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) etc); in internet use, a flag associated with a user on a channel, determining whether or not they can send messages to the channel.

(21) A rumor; fame, renown; command precept; to vote; to elect; to appoint; to clamor; to cry out (all obsolete).

(22) In entertainment, to provide the voice for a character (as voice-over for purposes such as foreign translations).

(23) In literary theory (1) the role of the narrator, (2) as viewpoint, the position of the narrator in relation to their story & (3) the content of what is delivered behind a persona (mask), the most basic form of aesthetic distance.

1250–1300: From the Middle English noun voice, voys & vois (sound made by the human mouth), from the Anglo-French voiz, voys & voice or directly from the Old French voiz & vois (voice, speech; word, saying, rumor, report (which survives in Modern French as voix)), from the Latin vōcem (voice, sound, utterance, cry, call, speech, sentence, language, word (and accusative of vōx (voice)), from the primitive Indo-European wṓkws, root noun from wekw- (to utter, speak).  It was cognate with the Latin vocāre (to call), the Sanskrit वाच् (vāc) & vakti ((he) speaks), the Ancient Greek ὄψ (óps) (voice) & épos (word (and related to the later “epic”)) and the Persian آواز‎ (âvâz).  The Latin was the source also of the Italian voce and the Spanish voz. The Anglo-French borrowing displaced the native Middle English steven (voice), from the Old English stefn, from the Proto-Germanic stemno, from the primitive Indo-European stomen-.  The extension of use to mean "ability in a singer" dates from the early seventeenth century while the idea of "expression of feeling etc." (in reference to groups of people etc) was known as early as the late fourteenth century (and persists in uses such as the broadcaster “Voice of America”) The meaning "invisible spirit or force that directs or suggests, (used especially in the mental health community in the context of “voices in one's head” dates from 1911.  The verb was from the Middle English voysen & voicen, from the noun and emerged in the mid fifteenth century, initially in the sense of "to be commonly said" (familiar still in terms like “the Arab voice”) and from circa 1600s it was understood to mean "to express, give utterance to a feeling, opinion etc”.  From 1867 there was also the technical meaning "utter (a letter-sound) with the vocal cords", used often as voiced or voicing.  The spelling voyce is long obsolete.  Voice & voicer are nouns; voiced is a verb & adjective and voicing is a noun & verb; the noun plural is voices.

The noun voicemail (originally voice mail) dates from 1982 and was one of the bolt-ons to fixed-line telephony which was among the most popular features of the early cellular (mobile) phones but, interestingly, by the late 1990s users had come much to prefer SMS (short message service or text).  The adjective voiceless began in the 1530s as a doctor’s description of one who had “lost their voice” but within a century was used to refer to those who had no say in affairs of Church and state: The voiceless masses”.  It was first used in the sense of "unspoken, unuttered" to refer to non-verbal communication in 1816 and in phonology "unvoiced" dates from 1867.  In idiomatic use, the phrases include “at the top of one's voice”, chest voice, chipmunk voice. liking the sound of one's own voice, outdoor voice, raising one's voice, voice changer, voice coil, voiceprint & voice quality.  In formal grammar, there’s active voice, anti-passive voice, middle voice, neuter voice & passive voice.

The Australian Labor Party, the “Voice to Parliament” and the referendum process.

With great enthusiasm from one faction and a feeling of impending dread from the other, Australia’s brand new Labor Party (ALP) government has confirmed the election promise to submit to the people a referendum to append to the Constitution of Australia a “Voice to Parliament” for the indigenous peoples will be honored, the vote scheduled for the second half of 2023.  In Australia, even to submit a referendum is ambitious given that of the 44 submitted since 1901, only eight have been approved and the bar to success is high, demanding (1) an absolute majority of voters nationally and (2) a majority in at least four of the six states.

The “Voice to Parliament” does seem to be wholly symbolic given the consensus view among legal academics that it neither “confers upon Indigenous Australians any special rights” nor “takes away any right, power or privilege from anyone who is not indigenous”.  In other words, it will have the same constitutional effect as the words “…humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God” have had since being enacted as part of the constitution in 1901: Nothing.  The view seems to be that the voice will provide “a strong basis on which to conduct further consultation”, the implication being the creation of a mechanism whereby there’s a standing institution of communication between the political elite and an indigenous elite.  So logical and efficient does that appear, it looks like one of the classic colonial fixes at which the British were so adept under the Raj.  In India they were the key to minimizing troubles while in Fiji they worked so well even the British administrators were astonished.  There, the Great Council of Chiefs, an institution entirely of the Raj’s imagination became so culturally entrenched that within a generation, the chiefs themselves were speaking of the council as if it had existed a thousand years.

2023 Toyota Land Cruiser Sahara ZX.

The ALP government has been at pains to ensure there’s nothing to frighten the horses, repeatedly confirming the voice will have “no veto power over the functions or powers of the parliament or the executive” and is limited to a purely advisory role in “making representations to the parliament and the executive government about matters, including existing or proposed laws, policies or decisions that have a connection to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”  It also maintains the opportunity to make these representations will be “…available to any individual or organisation”.  That of course is unlikely to mean that all voices will be created equal and the government, like the Raj, will find the system most agreeable once it decides which are the Indigenous Australians whose representations prove most helpful and thus worthy of a salaried position, an expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  This will give the voice a coherent form and in a nice piece of political window-dressing, will likely include mostly (reasonably) tame “Brezhnev approved dissident” types there to protest just enough to seem edgy but not enough to forsake a salaried position, expense account and a new Toyota Land Cruiser every year.  Those who get ideas above their station will be offered a trip to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly or a six month "study tour" taking in Rome, Venice and Paris in the late spring; it will be a job for those "hard faced men and women who have done very well out of colonization".

The government has said “the ultimate model was still being debated by internal groups, and would be subject to negotiation” but given the need to create something which gives the appearance of being much yet has absolutely no constitutional effect, it difficult to see what the basis for discussion might be other than details about Toyota Land Cruisers.  Despite that, there is opposition, one source of which comes from within the ALP, certain figures convinced (and the history of referendums in Australia is not encouraging) it’s impossible to get a vote to pass unless both side of politics advocate a “yes” vote.  So sensitive has become the issue of race they fear a no vote would be damaging internationally so are lobbying to find some excuse to “delay” the vote, even arguing it would be better first to pursue a treaty, the theory being if the can is kicked far enough down the road, by the time the matter re-surfaces, they’ll be retired and it’s someone else’s problem.

The leader of the opposition has announced the Liberal Party will be advocating a “no” vote, something which has doomed every referendum submitted without bipartisan support.  The leader of the opposition didn’t articulate any coherent reason to oppose the voice but history suggests saying “no” when the government says “yes” can be a successful approach and Lord Randolph Churchill’s (1849-1895) dictum that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose” remains good politics.  Of interest too among those opposing the voice is their language: Eschewing the popular (if contested) phrase “first nations” to describe Indigenous Australians for “first peoples”, they are anxious to ensure that any notion of sovereignty can’t be part of the discussion although, given the indivisibility of the doctrine (as opposed to land title) under law, it’s hard to see how this could be part of the debate about the voice.  Perhaps they are fretting about negotiating treaties and perhaps they should.

Finally, there are the “black-letter lawyers” who, noting that judicial activism seemed to be fashionable on the bench of the High Court of Australia not that long ago, worry some judges might find in the words of “the voice” things which on the basis of the usual techniques of linguistic or judicial construction would seem not to exist.  The High Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters; what a majority there says the words of the constitution mean is what they mean and while parliaments can by legislative change impose their will upon laws, the only way the wording of a passage in the constitution can be changed is to have substitute words approved by referendum; a probably improbable prospect.

Still, it’s difficult to advocate anything but a yes vote.  Since white settlement, Indigenous Australians have at times endured dispossession, discrimination, conditions which can be described only as slavery and not a few instances of mass murder and it’s absurd to suggest the level of disadvantage so many continue to suffer is not a consequence of this history.  What’s remarkable is not that among them there are expressions of discontent but that so many manage to maintain such generosity of spirit and willingness to engage.  The Voice may appear, as the Holy Alliance seemed to Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) “a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense” but it’s worth remembering he anyway recommended Britain signed the thing on the basis that although too vague to achieve anything substantive, it was unlikely to make things worse.  Something good may come from the Voice while little good can come from rejecting it.

Lindsay Lohan in promotional interview for debut album Speak (2004, Casablanca Records-UMG).

Lindsay Lohan’s sometimes hoarse voice has attracted comment, some finding the gravelly tone sexy, others expressing concern the change might be lifestyle induced. The voices of actors and singers are after all their stock-in-trade so something so distinctive can limit the one’s range of characters or repertoire although notable artists such as Marlene Dietrich (1901–1992) and Marianne Faithfull (b 1946) made a signature of what used to called a “gin-soaked voice”.  Still, Lindsay Lohan’s vocal dynamics piqued the interest of Dr Reena Gupta, Director of the Division of Voice and Laryngology at the Osborne Head & Neck Institute (OHNI) and she provided some explanatory notes, noting that while inherent for some, hoarseness can be a serious matter for those whose living depends on their voice, the condition sometimes reversible, sometimes not.  According to Dr Gupta, a clear voice requires (1) straight edges of the vocal cords, (2) regular and symmetric vibration of the vocal cords, (3) no space between the vocal cords, (4) no mucous on the vocal cords, healthy lungs and (5) a healthy vocal tract (and that includes the mouth, nose, sinuses etc).  Hoarseness occurs when there is damage to the vocal cords that either disrupts the straight edge of the vocal cords or disrupts their vibration, the other factors more important for ease of voice use and vocal tone.

Many injuries can cause the vocal edge to be irregular, thereby inducing hoarseness including polyps, cysts & nodules but even when the edges are straight, scarring can also dampen vibrations and make them irregular, scarred vocal cords having lost their ability to vibrate due to a loss of the vibrating layer and there is currently no cure for the loss of vibration due to scarring.  The scarring can happen for many reasons but is almost always caused by vocal trauma which can be induced by (1) talking loudly or frequent yelling, (2) singing with a flawed technique, (3) smoking (any substance) or (4) a chronic cough or habitual throat clearing.  Any behavior that causes inflammation of the vocal cords will result in a higher likelihood of scarring and a videostroboscopy is the only non-surgical procedure which can confirm the presence of scarring.  There’s nothing unusual or concerning about a hoarseness which lasts only a day or so but if it persists beyond that, a professional evaluation should be sought and many of the causes of are treatable, almost all able to be at least to some extent ameliorated.

Celebrity site ETOnLine.com in 2016 noted the “darkening” in Lindsay Lohan’s voice and posted examples of the variations.

However, prevention being better than cure, Dr Gupta provided the following guidelines for caring for one’s voice and there’s probably no other aspect of our physiology which, despite being so important, is so taken for granted:

(1) No smoking (that’s anything, including vaping).

(2) No heavy use of alcohol, though in moderation it’s OK.

(3) When in a loud environment (restaurants, clubs, parties, sporting events et al), restrict the use of the voice use to a minimum and resist the temptation to shout except in cases of life or death.

(4) Hydration is especially important when in a loud environment (always carry water).

(5) If the voice has been subject to loud or prolonged use, rest the vocal cords the next day.  Under extreme conditions (towards the end of epic-length Wagnerian opera, the voices of even the most skilled will sound a little ragged) there will always be some damage, just as many athletes will tear a few things in competition which is why the recovery protocols must be observed.

(6) If scheduled to need one’s voice in perfect shape, do not the previous evening go somewhere one may be required to shout.

(7) Avoid recreational drugs; their effects are always uncertain.

(8) Learn correct voice use.  Although actors & singers often undertake professional voice training for reasons of articulation and projection, they also learn techniques to ensure damage is minimized and a clinical vocal exam prior to these lessons is advisable to ensure that physically, all is well.