Monarchy, Yay or Nay?

[Arachon]

I live in Sweden, officially called "The Kingdom of Sweden", as you've probably guessed, It's one of many European monarchies, we have a king and a royal family. The royal family does not have to work, they live on tax-payer money, and they do live like... well... kings, sporting many expensive cars, expensive clothes, expensive trips etc.

Additionally, the royal family is also above the law, they can not be arrested or prosecuted. And all these rights are something you receive by being born in the right family, or perhaps marrying the right person.

As a trade-off, the royal family do not possess any official political power, despite the king/queen being head of state.


So what do you people think about monarchy? Does it fit in well in a democratic system, or is it just a remain of the olden days that stains our society?

 

[bad rider]

Personally I like the idea of a monarchy, I see it as a system of goverment should our current one collapse.

 

[ygetoff]

I rule my own little realm with an iron fist, so of course I'm okay with monarchy.

 

[Shadow Law]

I would be fine with it only if one day out of the year you were allowed to hit or slap anyone in the family of your choosing.

 

[Malkavian]

I come from Denmark, so our monarchies are identical.

These days, I find myself agreeing much more to a monarchy, instead of a democracy. Not like the monarchy we have now, where it's a symboliv position, but like the old days - a monarchy that has the real power.

I am finding myself more and more dissapointed in the common danish man. The broad public is so easily swayed by politcal rhetoric, instead of common sense. Here in Denmark, when the present government first came into power, a lot of experts and councils were shut down. The rhetoric was, that experts had too much power - we want the danish man to decide! What a load of bull... The common man, all respect to him, doesn't know very much about climate changes. He knows what it's basicly about, but he ahsn't got any insight into it.
The common man knows a little about economy, but he doesn't know about the flow of finances, how a state investments can affect the economical system, etc.
The common man doesn't know much about human rights, about medical compunds, about ethical questions...

It's not too long ago, a law was passed in Denmark, about immigrants. Denmarks number 1 expert on the danish constitution started speaking up. He explained in the media that the law was completely in violation of the danish constitution. A politician from the most "anti-immigrant" party in Denmark(a party that is extremely well known for their spin and rhetoric) ridiculed the man, saying that we couldn't use his advice for anything. He wasn't a politician, was the comment, what did he know? And the public believed it.
The reason is, that the common public can much easier understand politicians. So few today take actual interest in the political process, and the actual responsibility that it is. They choose to listen to whoever presents his case easiest and with most entertainment, and go with that. So politicians play on that, and become populists, instead of having balls and sometimes acting against the broad public.

That is not a responsible way to run a country. We want the best decissions to be taken, not the hasty, temporary feelings of a swayed public.
Such a public does not deserve to be in power.

A monarch is above that. He may not know much more than the common man, but he will usually have a great education. Furthermore, he will surround himself with capable advisors, because he ahs no need for politics related to the people. He doesn't need to worry about an election, cause he is a monarch. So he can take responsible steps.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I am not much for it. Monarchy lasts as long as the family lasts, which means that there's going to be a struggle as to WHICH family that is, and when losing families are tired enough, they try to change which family is in charge. Smells like you're just asking for civil war.

Also, there is no guarantee that the monarch will be fit for the job. Example: Caligula, Nero, and Elagabalus of the Julien monarchy in Rome. True they may have been Emperors not kings, but the title was familial so technically it is a monarchy.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Monarchy is only viable if the monarch is intelligent enough to make the proper decisions. The second he starts overtaxing the populace or going to war mindlessly, we've got a problem.

Perhaps a constitutional monarchy, with promised civil rights, tax rates (except in war times), and the like?

 

[gmer412]

I think my country might have had a problem with that a while ago... and there's just no way to make sure that the monarch doesn't become a dictator.

 

[ElephantGuts]

It has its ups and downs. A Royal Family is good for supporting patriotism and the general public morale and the like. The free-loading off taxes and being above the law would be okay if they deserved it and made up for it by serving (positively leading) the country, but the problems with that are that they can't lead the country since they have no political power, so why do they deserve all this? Also, the problem with hereditary rule being that the only right they have to all this in the first place is by birth, so they could still be horrible people and terribly abuse this power.

Overall, I think that a royal family, and thus a monarchy, is just about useless. Maybe if the royals actually ruled it would be a bit more sensible (with an appropriate system of checks, and maybe balances, to control them from ruining the country of course). But, it's not exactly a terrible thing, I suppose I can tolerate it.

 

[Brotherofwill]

Hell Nay!

 

[Mephisteus]

People are idiots and power corrupts.

They both suck, but I prefer the monarchy simply for the reason that a monarch has a rather vested interest in the survival of the country. And idiots might say they do, but they fail to realise the implications of certain actions.

*shrug* Can't really know, there aren't any modern first-world monarchies to compare the current governments to.

 

[McClaud]

Well, in it's current form monarchy is innocuous. It might be a waste of money, but then again so are state-sponsored museums. Both, however, attempt to preserve a little bit of national heritage and tradition, so I think they're alright by that standpoint.

Of course, as a form of government (absolute monarchy) then it's not okay at all. People have a right to vote on whether they will merely act stupidly, or act supremely stupidly, and shouldn't have some queen telling them to what degree they will be acting stupidly. But that was never really asked, I just wanted to toss it in there to pad out my post.

I'm with this person.

The two-fold problem with monarchies exhibiting some sort of political power:

1. They will be ruling to serve their own needs first, the people's needs second (doesn't matter how much they say it's the other way round, they only do things for the people to maintain their power).

2. It allows the regular person to be politically lazy and gives them an excuse to remain ignorant. "Let the King figure it out," isn't an intelligent response and that person should be beaten around the head with a large fish until he realizes that hey - we should all be politically responsible.

 

[Arachon]

A monarch is above that. He may not know much more than the common man, but he will usually have a great education. Furthermore, he will surround himself with capable advisors, because he has no need for politics related to the people. He doesn't need to worry about an election, cause he is a monarch. So he can take responsible steps.

Whilst it is true that a monarch may be able to make more informed decisions, you also have to consider that the monarch may be batshit-insane, he might pass a law that involves killing everyone with their last name beginning with an 'S'.

I also do not believe that the power should ever be taken from the people (excuse the cliché) at any point, no matter the situation.

[...] usually have a great education. [...]

Hm... I don't know about your queen, but our king is as stupid as they come...

 

[KeyMaster45]

I think that if a country keeps its old monarchs around, despite the fact they do nothing, shows that they have respect for the royal lineage. After all, without the old monarchy their country wouldn't be what it is today.

I'm not British, but I'll gladly proclaim "God save the Queen" when the moment warrents it....first I need to figure out when one would say that though....

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

Monarchy? Seriously? In the 21st century?

Listen. Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of governmenet. Supreme executive power dervies from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'ed put me away!

It's true!

Dennis, there's lovely filth down here!

 

[FarleShadow]

This is what I figure:

Better a Monarch than these pissing, shitting moneywaster governments who are far more happy to burn money by the truckload and suffocate every public service with red tape.

What could be better than a lineage of people, bred to be leaders, with extensive educations in every aspect of government? Now this is not to say that this person should lead and never be questioned, no, they SHOULD be questioned and debated by the people. But if they can convince the rabbling mob of todays society that this course of action is better than this other course, then that is a vast improvement over our current 'Lets spend 10 years arsing around with committees before we end up doing it anyway, but make sure we get re-elected so we can continue to fuck around' method of government which has pretty much fucked us from day one.