The Right of Democracy

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On the other hand, Democracy was a bit different in the 18th Century . It must be admitted that Democracy has got it right far more times than Monarchy, and Democracy has a way of fixing itself if it gets it wrong.

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

[CountArach]

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

You still haven't explained why a Monarchy is better than an elected official, such as a President, doing the same job.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You still haven't explained why a Monarchy is better than an elected official, such as a President, doing the same job.

I don't recall yet having been asked, since the debate as to whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic is better is not the point of this thread at all. I did explain it in the last thread where I was asked, to my recollection.

[CountArach]

I don't recall yet having been asked, since the debate as to whether a constitutional monarchy or a republic is better is not the point of this thread at all. I did explain it in the last thread where I was asked, to my recollection.

Alright then:

What makes a Monarch better than a Democratically elected President at fulfilling the rolls you wish it to?

Yes I agree that poor political philospher has been worn out by progression hasn't he?
Where has all that high-minded Rupublican vigour gone to?

I don't know, but I want it back :(

[Incongruous]

Hahah, CA I never realised you were such a romanticist! Do want a powdered wig also?

The fact is Evil Maniac, that a monarchy can never compete with Democracy in allowing men to judge what is best for themselves, and thus is under threat of politically minded men getting rid of it. As history has shown us.

You are not going to give us a Platonic view are you?

[CountArach]

Hahah, CA I never realised you were such a romanticist! Do want a powdered wig also?

I think these are a good look

I <3 Democracy

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Then you will have constitutional monarchy, right? Which is what Britain already has......

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.

What makes a Monarch better than a Democratically elected President at fulfilling the rolls you wish it to?

1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
3) Tourist money.
4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
5) A monarch is non-partisan.
6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

[CountArach]

1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.

The President is more of a 'real' person than the Monarch then. This gives them a greater ability to empathise with people.

2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.

I don't care about Tradition. Tradition means that the State is somewhat inflexible.

3) Tourist money.

When I went to America I took a tour of the White House. The queues were huge.

4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.

What about when the Monarch dies?

5) A monarch is non-partisan.

Alright, this one is a fair point. I'm sure examples of very partisan Monarchs could be found.

6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

I don't understand this one, could you elaborate? If you mean that a Monarchy is likely to lead to more respect between nations, look at what happened at the close of the Victorian period - World War I...

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

I am not going to put a price on my freedom.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

We aren't whining about the Constitutional Monarchy, we are whining about the Monarchy part of it. You are not electing the highest official in your Government, which by definition makes it undemocratic.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The President is more of a 'real' person than the Monarch then. This gives them a greater ability to empathise with people.

That is untrue and you know it.

I don't care about Tradition. Tradition means that the State is somewhat inflexible.

Not necessarily. Tradition is the preservation of what gives your country identity.

When I went to America I took a tour of the White House. The queues were huge.

Perhaps. But you must admit that in the United Kingdom, for example, a monarch seems to hold a certain something that a President could not. The people flock to the pomp and ceremony of a monarch.

What about when the Monarch dies?

You get a new solid rock to represent your country. Laws of succession can differ - you do not need to pass the throne to the firstborn son, but instead it can go to the most competent child.

I don't understand this one, could you elaborate? If you mean that a Monarchy is likely to lead to more respect between nations, look at what happened at the close of the Victorian period - World War I...

For one thing, one of the main aggressors in the First World War was France - a republic. Secondly, when it comes to monarchies, we must look to the future, not the past. Anyone who wants a return to the WWI status quo is a fool - a modern monarchy can be and is something much different. Thirdly, monarchy was one of the most common forms of government of the time, so the likelihood that a monarchy would start a war was much higher than it is now.

I am not going to put a price on my freedom.

It does not, on a practical basis, make you any more or less free.

You are not electing the highest official in your Government, which by definition makes it undemocratic.

Incorrect. For one thing, we have many different types of democracy. Secondly, the citizens still have a voice through their elected representatives, who control the actual balance of power in the country, making it democratic.

I don't understand why you would like to have a government where one person can take away your rights in the blink of an eye.

Because they can't. I'm not talking about an absolute monarchy or anything even close to that - I'm talking about a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has a little more power, and where checks and balances exist to both the Parliament and the monarch in the form of each other and a constitution.

[KarlXII]

1) And what if the monarch is incompetent?
2) And? Does a sense of tradition make him a better ruler?
3) Come on, we're talking about administrating a nation, not tourism.
4) And if that rock is the laughing stock or most hated, it will not change until death, while a President is always recycled based off what the people want, not what a few think is good for them.
5) Hahaha, not even close.
6) Explain how a king is more diplomatically able then a President.

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.

Then you should have no problem with many European countries current administrations.

I don't understand why you would like to have a government where one person can take away your rights in the blink of an eye.

[Incongruous]

Yes, a constitutional monarchy. This does not mean the monarch has to be toothless, simply that the monarch does not have absolute rule. An ideal balance can be reached.



1) A monarch has been trained from birth to do the job. He has more training than a President.
2) A monarch brings a sense of tradition with him or her.
3) Tourist money.
4) There is a solid rock that represents your country, and does not change. Look at Thailand.
5) A monarch is non-partisan.
6) It is a diplomatic route made solid by mutual respect and diplomatic relations. See #5.

A monarch also does not mean more cost to the state.

Anyhow, everyone keeps whining about how a constitutional monarchy isn't democratic. A constitutional monarchy is as democratic as the constitution makes it - no more, no less.

1) A politician has been learning since birth about how society works. He has a a good understanding of his nation.
2) An elected leader brings a sense of social inclusion and cohesion with him or her.
3)Tourist money "You know I really like Paris but I've always felt it lacks a Royal Family"
4) There is a solid oak hat represents your country, and grows with time. Look at France.
5) Bopa doubts Monarchs can be non-partisan in a modern world, full of smart and wealthy men. Bopa can get rid of his lected leader.
6)Bopa does not udrstand this point, Bopa confused.

[KarlXII]

Which is why a monarchy should not be absolute, and should instead be combined with democracy and a constitution to varying degrees depending on the state in question.

Then you will have constitutional monarchy, right? Which is what Britain already has......