The Right of 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.

[Incongruous]

I'm sorry, but how have you proven that such a monarchy is any better than the lot we have now?

It seems worse because we cannot get rid of him if we want. What happens when the royal line dies out?
If he cannot rule by his will then what is the point of him?

Checks and balances? haha go tell that to the people of Diego Garcia!
Sounds like bolloks to me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sorry, but how have you proven that such a monarchy is any better than the lot we have now?

I've given you opinions, ideals, something that is possible. My system, which I have previously laid out in detail for someone (which may have been you), is not perfect, but is also not tested. And how can we find the ideal form of government if we do not try things?

[LittleGrizzly]

I was basically imagining something like UK monarchy but what powers would they have ?

Our queen signs our laws in and announces the new goverment, but these powers are little more than ceremonial, only in extreme circumstances could the UK monarchy do that (something like refusing new racist laws if the BNP got elected) so would thier powers be ceremonial ? or real ?

if ceremonial then it is somewhat similar to the UK now, which is fine i guess but there is no real need for the monarchy

if real then my problems have been stated by others...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

would thier powers be ceremonial ? or real ?

Real, but limited. The libertarian streak in me does not like an overly powerful government, monarchial or otherwise.

[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.