WTF asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 9 years ago

Constitutional Monarchy vs Republicanism...?

What is your opinion?

And please comment on my argument given below:

BTW, I might be biased as I am from the UK lol.

Constitutional Monarchy is undeniably the most tried and tested, stable system of democracy that exists. Every year the UN compiles a list of the best countries in the world to live, based on the quality of life of the citizens. And every year, despite the fact that there are more republics in the world, most of the top 20 are CM's, and most of the top 10 are CM's, and the top of the list is always a CM. Countries such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Belgium, The Netherlands, The UK. These are all near the top of the list.

And when you compare CM's and R's around the world that are close to each other and have a lot in common with each other:

- Would you rather live in Jordan or Iran under Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?

- Would you rather live in Japan or The People's Republic Of China under Hu Jintao?

- Would you rather live in Morocco (the best, most stable African country by far) or Zimbabwe under Mugabe? Or any other African Republic for that matter?

And when you look at the recent history of Europe: Britain has been a tried and tested, stable democracy for the past 3 and a half centuries because it has been a CM for that long. France turned into a republic and they got Napoleon. Germany turned into a republic and they got Hitler. Hitler said himself he was able to worm his way into power because there was no Monarch as Head Of State any more (The Kaiser had been forced into exile after WW1).

A Monarch gives us a Head Of State who does not represent a political party like a President would. She does not represent any political views. She creates unity in the country, whereas a politician creates division. And unity is created when all the MP's and all the Armed Forces swear allegiance to 1 person. And the average person off the street has respect for the Monarch even when everyone hates the government. These things are priceless and you can not have them in a republic.

So I think Constitutional Monarchy is best.

Would you agree or disagree?

Thanks.

Update:

Just a figurehead?

The Queen is responsible for calling new elections, opening Parliament and dissolving Parliament. And she is responsible for appointing and removing Ministers.

I would say it is better that a Monarch does those things than someone who is from one of the political parties.

Update 2:

@Strappado

Right, you're saying that Britain went through a gradual change...executing the king and becoming a republic which quickly turned into a military dictatorship (like most republics do at some point), and then creating a Constitutional Monarchy when Cromwell died. How is that a gradual change?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    "France turned into a republic and they got Napoleon. "

    You seem to assume that Napoleon set himself up as some sort of evil tyrant or military dictatorship, similar to Hitler.

    Napoleon was elected and appointed to his position, but unlike Hitler he did not acquire that position via blackmail, backstabbing, and assassination. When he was First Consul Napoleon was not a dictator. Although that all-powerful position of First Consul had the power to propose legislation, it was the specialized sections of the Council of State that wrote them: finance, legislation, war, navy, interior. There was no secrecy; the ministers attended the meetings and the consuls' approval was required to enact a law. And what a sense of human relations the First Consul showed as he participated in the meetings of the Council, asking questions and encouraging discussion! In what democracy today do we find the head of state discussing and arguing about the country's affairs with the citizens' elite in this way? Where do we find that in Hitler's tyranny?

    When Napoleon became Emperor of the French, it was, for all intents and purposes, a constitutional monarchy. Although Napoleon held much political power, a government still existed that did not serve merely a tyrant. It's important to go back to the role of the important Council of State, the basis of the legislative system. The council members, senior officials, and auditors made up a extraordinary body, surprising its worth and technical skill. It dealt with all bills, gave its opinions, and ruled on appeals addressed to the Emperor. Twice a week the Emperor chaired the meetings. The presence of the man whose law ruled from the Atlantic to the plains of Poland did not inhibit those attending. On the contrary, the legislative policy of France was enacted there without the least absolutism, and in a way, it was the entire government.

    So I'm not sure if I quite answered the question. I agree that constitutional monarchy and bring order and law out of a country that recently witnessed domestic and international violence and anarchy, as was Napoleon's case, but I don't agree that he was some sort of dictator.

    Source(s): Napoleon: The Man Who Shaped Europe by Ben Weider
  • 9 years ago

    I think this is similar to preferring state leaders without mustaches. There are other things at play here than "constitutional monarchy".

    What is probably significant about constitutional monarchies is that they're by definition former monarchies that have slowly abandoned "real monarchy", but will let royal families sit a bit longer as a symbol. It's a very pragmatic solution. A state that develops gradually is preferable to a state with abrupt changes. So in a sense, the keyword is Constitutional, not Monarchy

    Many of the republics you mention the change happened violently by fanatics, but how about Iceland and Finland? The fact of the matter is that the European countries that are constitutional monarchies could easily change into republics by referendums at some point (if a majority wanted it) without breaking into civil war.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    On the one hand it is good to have a constant head of state no matter which government is in charge, no matter what state the economy is in; it gives the country a definite past and future. Americans use a constitution for the same reason.

    However, the head of state being the head of state by birth is something I do not agree with but the only alternative is to have an inanimate object or document to give identity. While I have no ill will of any kinnd to Elizabeth II I cannot say the same about her grand children, they can never be the soul of Britain, they are spoiled brats and I never wish to see either of them as King.

  • 9 years ago

    Any country in which the government is elected by the people and the society is developed enough to control the government actions and change it every 4 years if they act poorly, will become a developed country, and it doesn't matter if the head of the state is a monarch or not. The important thing is that the goverment is elected by the people and is not corrupt.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    You will find at the Queen's death support for the Monarchy will fade. What would function better than a traditional Constitutional Monarchy or a traditional Republic would be a Governor-General, who could be the most senior judge with the single purpose to dissolve or suspend Parliament only at the request of the Prime Minister or at the end of each term. The duty of delivering the Monarch's Speech could be transferred to the PMs themselves. Abolition of the monarchy would not only save money spent on the Civil List but allows the State's royal residences to be used by the government or be fully open to the public. However the UK monarchy carries a lot of prestige, it'd be foolish to dispose of it for politicking.

  • 4 years ago

    America has not been a Republic nor a Constitutional Republic for the last 20 years. Your utopia simply does not exist.

  • 5 years ago

    monarchy works well long term, the proof is in the examples, Benelux, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the UK ( and the white commonwealth ) versus vengeful controlling unhappy republics like France (every one looks miserable) USA ( 20% child poverty no healthcare and an exploited workforce) and Germany ( not to bad but only ok for Germans.).

  • 1. The monarchist has used a common form of illogic and purposeful deceit by trying to pass off extreme examples (such as Hitler and Mugabe) as normal. The claim that monarchies provide stability is stupidity and deceit that does not stand up to any scrutiny. Under monarchies there was the Russian revolution, the French revolution, and the American revolution. In 1914 Europe was all monarchies yet they got World War One. Prior to World War Two monarchies gave rise to fascist dictatorships : Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Tojo in Japan.The republics of Switzerland and Iceland have never had revolutions or warfare, whereas Britain very certainly has. Entirely false claims have been made about where the UN claims are the best places to live, 2. The republics of Switzerland, USA, Germany, Ireland, Korea, iceland, Finland and Israel all finished above the UK with its monarchy. 3. The claim that we have a monarchy without political views is both false and irrelevant. On behalf of the monarchy Prince Charles is continuously writing to ministers to try to change government policy. With 10 million people in Britain wanting to be rid of the monarchy, the monarchy obviously does not create unity. It is very deceitful to claim that everyone hates the government. Governments are elected by popular vote. Monarchs NEVER are. Prince Charles who will soon be monarch is widely disliked.

  • andy
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    You are forgetting that the UN is biased against the United States and rewards Nations that have a more socialist bent like most of Europe. Also, Canada and Australia are not Constitutional Monarchies since they don't have a Monarch unless they are borrowing Britain's Monarchy.

  • 9 years ago

    Constitutional Monarchy is pointless because the monarch is just a figurehead. And if you actually give the monarch any power, they quickly become a tyrant. And frankly, I am offended that someone would claim to have superior station to all other citizens merely by their birthright.

    • Jack6 years agoReport

      And so is a president of many republics such as Ireland, Italy and Germany

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.