Question by JohnWayne: Would you like to see all monarchies abolished & should ALL monarchy & remnants of it should be gone for good?
It really is something of a none started to argue that a monarchy can act as a counter-balance within a democracy or that members of a royal family can & do good works. A democracy should by its very nature not need a counter-balance, but should the fear be there within the society then there is a second “house” &/or a judiciary that can act as a control. And as in the French system a president need not be of the same political party as the government & can in extreme circumstances terminate a government & call elections.
As for members of a royal family doing “good things”, so what, pop-stars do “good things” too (which is essentially what today’s royals are now, USELESS), but nobody is ever going to advocate paying them out of taxes. The British royal family are put forward as working for the greater good of the British people, but if they were to disappear some other strata of society would take their place performing the same function at a fraction of the cost. The current crop of young royals in Europe seem to spend most of their time getting into & out scandalous scrapes & as for using Ex-Princess Diana as a “good” example of a member of a royal family that only shows that somebody swallowed all the media hype of the time.
No society today has a need of a monarchy, good government yes, but a monarchy plays no needful part in that.
And as we have reached the 21st Century, since there are few monarchies and even fewer in the traditional sense, many people now view monarchy as an archaic system and should have no place in modern society. And even the democratic constitutional ceremonial monarchies are very fragile and in threat of their survival (with them relying on percentages of support and the citizenry being indifferent toward these monarchies). Because in the 21st century, a political institution, monarchy, which has been around since preliterate man, is on the verge of extinction. In an age of democracy, it is hierarchic; in an age of egalitarianism, it is elitist; in an age of skepticism, it is mystical.So tell me, Do You think it’s time for the remaining monarchies of the World to be abolish and if so, why? Please! I want a straight forward yes or no answer and why. And NOT just that “THEY’RE TRADITION THEY SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE” OR “IT’S UP TO THE PEOPLE” I NEED A BETTER ANSWER THAN THAT!
I really don’t care if such and such monarchy is the most democratic or high on the HDI or got a high percentage of support. That’s not proving your point. We’re talking about THE PEOPLE choosing their leaders INCLUDING the Head-of-State.
I have heard about these nations, and they want republics or don’t care two rats about their royals other than entertainment. And I will be glad the people will one day throw off the remaining shackles of a medieval political structure that is based on the belief that an aquatic tart threw a sword at someones ancestor and somehow that gives them the right to govern people. The concept of governance that is based on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords to men in order to declare themselves a ruler is absurd. Here we are 1500 years later and people still tolerate such nonsense. Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
I recommend you read this website. For it debunks the myths.:
http://www.republic.org.uk/
Also read this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuEqE5VtXBBOiw7YHk.E_TsjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=1006051119310
Best answer:
Answer by Rollo
The problem with electing a head of state is that you instantly give that person a mandate to do something.
Whether that mandate vests itself to the point of dangerousness as in the case of the United States where on the order of the President, the nation has been sent to multiple wars on numerous occasions, or uselessness in the case of France where ironically, you end up with precisely the same condition that you complain about in Britain.
Assuming Great Britain was to adopt a republican model, then presumably the head of state who would probably be called a President. If there is a President, then what is his relation to the Prime Minister? Do you want him to be more or less powerful, or merely a figurehead?
If the President replaces the Queen, then is the President to be elected by the parliament or by the people? If the President is to be elected by the people, then what sorts of powers do they have? Are they to be defined or a loose sort of nebulous arrangement like the current monarchical system? And if the President is to be elected by the people, does that infer that the President would have a mandate to exercise those as yet undefined powers?
Since the inventor of the modern Republic was France; this grew out of the tyranny associated with the Emperors like Napoleon which for all intents were identical in character to the line of kings they deposed. Currently the French President (Nicolas Sarkozy) is directly elected and holds similar powers to the Queen. The President signs off on legislation and frequently exercises their powers of veto as they see fit. They also have the power to rule on constitutional matters and can refer matters to a referendum.
The problem is that the President is not exactly a respected position. Sarkozy is not necessarily held in high regard with the airs that should come with head of state and is often accused of being incompetent.
Which I’m quite sure bodes well for the idea you have proposed.
(And not once did I mention “tradition”)
Give your answer to this question below!
