The Right of Democracy

[Viking]

We seem to be very good at picking Presidents who are idiots (oh, that's right, we don't pick them anyways), or at least bad, so why would it make a difference which idiot is in power? It doesn't, but it does give stability and an individual who is trained to keep away from the partisan bickering of ordinary politics.

You have no guarantee that the king is even going to be interested in politics, whereas a politician necessarily is; or whether he in fact will keep the country stable; he could very well have some revolutionary thoughts himself.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You have no guarantee that the king is even going to be interested in politics

If he does not show any kind of interest in administration or diplomacy, he can refuse to inherit the throne. I'm still talking about a constitutional monarchy here.

or whether he in fact will keep the country stable; he could very well have some revolutionary thoughts himself.

He could - and that is the beauty of monarchism. Anyone can be a monarchist, whether they are on the left or right of the political spectrum. Likewise, the king can have a specific political idealogy. However, that is why we have a parliament. They can balance each other.

[Viking]

If he does not show any kind of interest in administration or diplomacy, he can refuse to inherit the throne. I'm still talking about a constitutional monarchy here.

But he wouldn't have to. He could take on his role with less knowledge than the lower end spectrum of politicians.

He could - and that is the beauty of monarchism. Anyone can be a monarchist, whether they are on the left or right of the political spectrum. Likewise, the king can have a specific political idealogy. However, that is why we have a parliament. They can balance each other.

But the stability is gone; it'd be no more stable than the average Western democracy. In addition to that, the parliament could of course also change.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You have no guarantee that the king is even going to be interested in politics, whereas a politician necessarily

Most politicians seem more interested in their careers or getting a place in the history books. Although I'm not sure why royalty would be any better.

[woad&fangs]

EMFM, by any chance could you direct me to a post where you've explained your Monarchist system? I know you went into detail about it at one point but I can no longer remember which thread it was in.

Danke

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Viking, I haven't forgotten your post, don't worry.

Most politicians seem more interested in their careers or getting a place in the history books. Although I'm not sure why royalty would be any better.

Royalty, at least in theory, doesn't need to worry about the blatant careerism.

EMFM, by any chance could you direct me to a post where you've explained your Monarchist system? I know you went into detail about it at one point but I can no longer remember which thread it was in.

Danke

I, unfortuntately, can't remember the thread either, but I'll take a look. If I can't find it, I'll type it out again in this thread.