- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Constitutional Monarchies > Democratic Republics?
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:02 am
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:02 am
Some interesting points:
Pros and cons of a monarchy vs a republic
Advantages of a constitutional monarchy:
Stability. The head of state is appointed for a very long perdiod of time, usually until she/he abdicates or die. This gives the country more stability in comparison with republics where the head of state changes every few years.
Education. In a monarchy, the future head of state is known from birth, therefore she/he is raised and educated accordingly. Monarchs are usually well prepared for their role and enjoy a priviledged multidisciplinary education.
Neutrality. The head of state is not a politician, therefore is not tied to any particular party. She/he can ensure neutrality and balance while in power.
No election cost. In many countries, the campaign to elect the head of state can be very expensive. In monarchy, succession has little costs.
Less corruption? Advocates of constitutional monarchy claim that knowing you will serve for a life term reduces the risk of corruption, while an elected politician may feel the urge to take advantage of his position knowing it will not last. Presidents may have shorter term goals and incentives, while the monarch may care more about the long term. After all they want their children to inherit the throne and don't want them to have to face a complicated future.
LINK
Pros and cons of a monarchy vs a republic
Advantages of a constitutional monarchy:
Stability. The head of state is appointed for a very long perdiod of time, usually until she/he abdicates or die. This gives the country more stability in comparison with republics where the head of state changes every few years.
Education. In a monarchy, the future head of state is known from birth, therefore she/he is raised and educated accordingly. Monarchs are usually well prepared for their role and enjoy a priviledged multidisciplinary education.
Neutrality. The head of state is not a politician, therefore is not tied to any particular party. She/he can ensure neutrality and balance while in power.
No election cost. In many countries, the campaign to elect the head of state can be very expensive. In monarchy, succession has little costs.
Less corruption? Advocates of constitutional monarchy claim that knowing you will serve for a life term reduces the risk of corruption, while an elected politician may feel the urge to take advantage of his position knowing it will not last. Presidents may have shorter term goals and incentives, while the monarch may care more about the long term. After all they want their children to inherit the throne and don't want them to have to face a complicated future.
LINK
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 8:03 am
11
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:05 am to AUveritas
That is until the monarch is a Nero or Caligula or just some feckless, ineffectual leader like the last czar of Russia.
Monarchies are a crap shoot. Sometimes you get Caesar or Alexander the Great. Sometimes you don’t.
Monarchies are a crap shoot. Sometimes you get Caesar or Alexander the Great. Sometimes you don’t.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:06 am to Oilfieldbiology
Thats why I specified a Constitutional Monarchy, with a system of checks and balances.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:07 am to AUveritas
There are always elections in a constitutional monarchy. You still have to elect members of Parliament to determine who will be Prime Minister. Prime Ministers can serve very short (1 year or less) terms or very long terms (10 years plus) but in that time there can be a number of elections. As far as stability from an economic standpoint, it can ebb and flow with changes of government and the policies of the ruling party at the time. And believe me, the monarch and immediate family may not be corrupt, but the politicians working for them certainly are. Just as corrupt as any other country. One of the things the department I worked for in Australia was investigating government corruption.
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 8:09 am
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:08 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
That is until the monarch is a Nero or Caligula or just some feckless, ineffectual leader like the last czar of Russia.
Monarchies are a crap shoot. Sometimes you get Caesar or Alexander the Great. Sometimes you don’t.
In reality most constitutional monarchies dont do much, even though in theory they could.
Its a little known fact Elizabeth II is actually the commander in chief of a couple of countries armed forces (UK, Canada, etc...).
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:09 am to TheFonz
So, I guess that the issue then becomes how much power the monarchy is granted.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:10 am to AUveritas
Correct. Constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is more of a figurehead (don't get me wrong - they have power but not to develop government policy) or an absolute monarchy where the monarch has all of the power.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:12 am to AUveritas
I see your points but I think you misdescribe them. Every virtue of a monarch you listed should begin with "the illusion of..." for instance:
The illusion of stability. They create an image of continuity but Parliament and PM has turnover just like our republic.
The illusion of education. Their education is real but the system's need for them to apply it to any actual problem solving is non-existant
The illusion of neutrality. There is still a ruling party that does the actual governance.
The illusion of no election cost. The queen isn't elected but the PM & Parliament is.
The illusion of stability. They create an image of continuity but Parliament and PM has turnover just like our republic.
The illusion of education. Their education is real but the system's need for them to apply it to any actual problem solving is non-existant
The illusion of neutrality. There is still a ruling party that does the actual governance.
The illusion of no election cost. The queen isn't elected but the PM & Parliament is.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:15 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Monarchies are a crap shoot.
This. Succession is based on lineage, not merit, so if the new king is a moron or a psychopath you have to hope he doesn't live long and the next guy is better.
On the other hand I believe we've been voting for the lesser of two evils for a while here, and that points to at least one big flaw in the party system we use.
Edit: If you don't believe this has been going on for a long time, look at the 1980 Presidential election. Nobody had any idea how good Reagan would be, but everybody knew we didn't want Carter because he f**ked up everything he touched. So we voted for the lesser of two evils and got lucky that Reagan was awesome.
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 8:20 am
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:18 am to TheHarahanian
Can we all agree that put current form of democracy isn't viable long term and am alternative must be considered? Political parties are tearing this country apart. If it's this bad now, I'd hate to see the political divide 100 years from now.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:24 am to AUveritas
quote:
alternative must be considered
The internet might provide a way out, if somebody smarter than me can figure out a way to gather like-minded people to say "the candidate our party has provided isn't good enough, so as a block we're going to throw our votes behind this other guy who is infinitely more qualified but isn't rich enough to run on his own".
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:30 am to AUveritas
Yes.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:33 am to AUveritas
you seem to describe a monarchy more than a constitutional monarchy.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:38 am to AUveritas
I don't see that it is not viable. We have had huge political divides between political parties since the inception of political parties. Imagine if there was the internet or tv during the fights between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. We had a duel that came out of this fight between parties and 2 guys who hated each other in Burr and Hamilton.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:43 am to airfernando
quote:
you seem to describe a monarchy more than a constitutional monarchy.
I probably do lean that way. I think a more literal constitutional monarchy would be ideal. By that, I mean a monarchy more powerful than a parliament but bound by a constitution to hold their authority in check. It just seems more logical to me. As the old saying goes, Heaven is a heirarchy: in hell, all are equal.
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 8:45 am
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:58 am to AUveritas
quote:
Can we all agree that put current form of democracy isn't viable long term and am alternative must be considered? Political parties are tearing this country apart. If it's this bad now, I'd hate to see the political divide 100 years from now
Don’t blame the system. Blame the ignorant and emotional population. They voted the uncompromising, divisive career politicians into power and keep doing so.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 8:58 am to AUveritas
No. If the pope can be bought.. a monarchy can definitely be bought.
One way to maybe fix our current situation is to make it illegal for politicians to make any income outside of the income of their political position.
May have to expand it so that it affects the entire household of politicians. Basically meaning that the spouses of politicians have to live off of that income also.
Sounds a little screwy, but it'll weed out the assholes that are only politicians to get rich. Pelosi(example) would've retired from politics decades ago if her husband wasn't allowed to profit from his business, and she wasn't allowed to use her position to take in extra money, herself.
McCain would've probably retired after his first term.
One way to maybe fix our current situation is to make it illegal for politicians to make any income outside of the income of their political position.
May have to expand it so that it affects the entire household of politicians. Basically meaning that the spouses of politicians have to live off of that income also.
Sounds a little screwy, but it'll weed out the assholes that are only politicians to get rich. Pelosi(example) would've retired from politics decades ago if her husband wasn't allowed to profit from his business, and she wasn't allowed to use her position to take in extra money, herself.
McCain would've probably retired after his first term.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:01 am to AUveritas
quote:
Can we all agree that put current form of democracy isn't viable long term and am alternative must be considered?
Term limits for Congress. Those frickers will say anything and pander to whatever fringe groups they feel will help them get re-elected. When what's best for my re-election campaign is more important than what's best for my country, its time to put term limits in place. House should have 4 term limit and Senate should have 2 term limit. Nobody should be in Congress for more than 20 years.
Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:04 am to Plx1776
You assume that the politicians would obey the law. I'd say that's far less likely than being able to buy off a king or queen. As pointed out in my OP, a royal family would have a greater interest in fixing the long term issues of the country.
This post was edited on 1/29/18 at 9:18 am
Posted on 1/29/18 at 9:26 am to AUveritas
Even monarchs that start out as ethical rulers over time they become corrupt. It's human nature. The only one I can think of who did not was Pericles.
Hell, we see it in Congress. The most corrupt self absorbed members of Congress in both parties are the ones who have been there for decades.
Hell, we see it in Congress. The most corrupt self absorbed members of Congress in both parties are the ones who have been there for decades.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News