Republic or Monarchy ?

**GroovyShamrock** · 01-08-2010 10:31 AM

So, which do you think is a best system of government, and why? (In both cases I'm refering to a democratic republic, like France or the US, and a democratic, constitutional kingdom, like the UK or the Netherlands, where the monarch is the head of state but not an actual ruler).

In Northern Ireland, where I come from, this is a huge issue, because of the "Troubles". But I was wondering what people outside of that culture think?

Pros and cons?

**fleur de lis** · 01-08-2010 11:01 AM

even for a real monarchy (where the king is truly king) i'd gamble with my fortunes.....as long as i was upper-middle/merchant class or higher.....the aristocracy and upper bourgeoisie has it pretty good if they play their cards right under a king..... i've got the book of the courtier, i'm all set.... i think i'd have a blast.....

**very bored** · 01-08-2010 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by GroovyShamrock

So, which do you think is a best system of government, and why? (In both cases I'm refering to a democratic republic, like France or the US, and a democratic, constitutional kingdom, like the UK or the Netherlands, where the monarch is the head of state but not an actual ruler).

What's the difference between the two if the monarch has no power? Giving the head of state power shouldn't matter if he or she is governed by the same laws as a non-head-of-state ruler.

**GroovyShamrock** · 01-09-2010 12:59 AM

There are differences, not least on a symbolic level.

In the US, France and even Ireland to a certain extent, there have been violent revolutions in the past (1776, 1789, 1916) to overthrow the power of the monarchy. The opposition to monarchy is very much a part of those peoples' history.
In the UK and the NL, many people don't mind the monarchy too much and some are even fond of it, because there isn't such a history of the monarchy meddling in their affairs (Britain had a constitutional monarchy, with a Parliament, while Louis XIV, an absolute monarch, was ruling France).

Nowadays, the monarchy still freeloads on taxpayers' money: they get much more than non-royal head of state (presidents). The crown is still passed on hereditarily. Symbolic oaths of allegiance are still taken by some office holders or citizens. ANd then there's the strange situation where Canada, Jamaica and Australia still have the Queen of England as their head of state (they have a prime minister but no president).
But on the other hand, a royal head of state is (in theory at least) neutral and objective, whereas in presidential systems, the head of state (president) belongs to a specific party (Obama democratic, Sarkoz y UMP)...

@ Fleur de Lis: haha, being a courtier could be fun...

**thewindlistens** · 01-09-2010 02:59 AM

It's an issue with no real meaning to me. The difference is symbolic. Royalty as a symbol has no strength where I come from. At least for anyone younger than 85, I suppose.

**very bored** · 01-09-2010 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by GroovyShamrock

There are differences, not least on a symbolic level.

In the US, France and even Ireland to a certain extent, there have been violent revolutions in the past (1776, 1789, 1916) to overthrow the power of the monarchy. The opposition to monarchy is very much a part of those peoples' history.
In the UK and the NL, many people don't mind the monarchy too much and some are even fond of it, because there isn't such a history of the monarchy meddling in their affairs (Britain had a constitutional monarchy, with a Parliament, while Louis XIV, an absolute monarch, was ruling France).

This part makes it sound like rejecting an abusive government conflicts with accepting a good one.

Originally Posted by GroovyShamrock

Nowadays, the monarchy still freeloads on taxpayers' money: they get much more than non-royal head of state (presidents). The crown is still passed on hereditarily. Symbolic oaths of allegiance are still taken by some office holders or citizens. ANd then there's the strange situation where Canada, Jamaica and Australia still have the Queen of England as their head of state (they have a prime minister but no president).
But on the other hand, a royal head of state is (in theory at least) neutral and objective, whereas in presidential systems, the head of state (president) belongs to a specific party (Obama democratic, Sarkoz y UMP)...

Because presidents are elected, they should (in theory at least) represent the people's will. "I am a Democrat" doesn't mean I will participate in the type of partisanship that ruins everything it touches. Based on this post, four countries have different governments, but have to share a head of state, and none of them get to help make the decision about who it is. Doesn't that at least sound like a bad idea?

**GroovyShamrock** · 01-09-2010 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by very bored

Doesn't that at least sound like a bad idea?

Yup. I think I prefer the system in Ireland and Germany where the president just presides, he/she hardly has any executive power at all. It's the taoiseach (prime minister) and in Germany the chancellor which have the executive power (along with the rest of the executive of course). In France we have a problem at the minute since the president is concentrating more power than he ought to.

**perennialurker** · 01-09-2010 08:05 AM

I understand that this is a common critique among commonwealth nations, and I am familiar with U.K. residents' dissatisfaction over paying to support the trappings of a symbolic hereditary head of state, but other than that I see no problems with it. In states like the U.S. where the head of state has real power, he is elected, in countries like the U.K. where the head of state has no real power, they are unelected. Perhaps you have more of an argument against it in principle, but in my mind the world has far worse problems to be grappling with before one gets to symbolic issues. Nevertheless, I completely understand your point. I assume you are also familiar with the argument that in the case of the U.K., the monarchy is said to bring in a substantial amount of revenue in the form of tourism. This increased revenue is said to be sufficiently high so as to justify the monarchy in financial terms. I am not a U.K. resident and have never seen the statistics; I thought I'd just present that case.

If you don't mind I'd like to extend this discussion out a bit further. As you are probably aware the debate between monarchy and representative government is the oldest in political philosophy. From what I understand this debate still lingers and indeed continues to dominate public discourse in the U.S. and many other nations albeit not in such explicit terms. Now the debate is not about monarchy vs. republic, but rather it is about government by elites vs. government by popular decision. I suspect the global economic crisis has strengthened this debate further. Is this perhaps something you were thinking about as well, Groovy?