Is monarchy a good form of government?

[Old Tyrannia]

All forms of government are good, people ruin them

Unless you are about to defend kleptocracies, plutocracies, theocracies, and feudal holdings, you really should retract that statement.

He's technically right, you know. In an idyllic world where everyone was selfless and benevolent, it would hardly matter what the form of government was, because whoever was in power would always strive to do what was best for everyone else.

I think the question is whether you prefer a democratic monarchy or a democratic republic. It's a debate open in many countries -_o_-

It's not a real monarchy. It's all symbolic.

Your understanding of politics and forms of government is extremely oversimplified and black and white. Divine right absolutism and ceremonial monarchies are not the only variants of monarchism in existence; there's a whole spectrum of monarchical forms of government.

It's good for the king.

Not necessarily. Life for a monarch is hardly easy. Your every action is scrutinised, you have the weight of your entire nation's expectations and the legacy of your ancestors on your shoulders, you're a potential target for assassination at all times, and your entire life is planned out for you from the moment you're born.

Fully democratic constitutional monarchies are super.

Absolute dictatorial monarchies not so much.

So they're a bit like republics, really.

I've used the phrase "non-sovereign monarchy" before, though I'm not sure if correctly, to refer to a system where the monarch has power over the legislature, but is restricted by a constitution in terms of laws he or she can and cannot make. For example, they could make some kind of legislative ruling to make something like a dangerous chemical banned in production of consumer products, but they couldn't (also as an example) try to make a law against homosexuality (assuming it is protected under the constitution, which I believe it should be). What are your thoughts on a system like that?

What you're talking about is an executive constitutional monarchy, as opposed to an absolute monarchy (where there are no formal legal limitations on the Sovereign's power) or a ceremonial constitutional monarchy (where the monarch's role is purely symbolic). "Non-sovereign monarchy" sounds more like you're referring to a subnational monarchy, such as the monarchies of Malaysia or the UAE, since they are not sovereign states in and of themselves.

[Camelza]

-snip-

What's your take on the Polish-Lithuanian model? The Poles thrived under it and managed to be the most free nation of the then known world.

[Turmenista]

Monarchy = Dictatorship

[Socialist Czechia]

Is flu a good form of disease?

[Kravanica]

To which form of monarchy do you refer to?

Absolute? Constitutional? Elective?

[Kravanica]

Also, the fact that the mods have not perma-locked this thread despite the shit OP just goes to show how quickly this site is sinking.

[Old Tyrannia]

-snip-

What's your take on the Polish-Lithuanian model? The Poles thrived under it and managed to be the most free nation of the then known world.

"Free" is a relative word. Certainly the nobility had far greater freedom under the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy than elsewhere in medieval Europe; however, I don't believe the lives of the peasantry were significantly better than under other feudal monarchies at the time. That said, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth does provide a model for modern executive constitutional monarchies to follow, together with early modern Britain.

[Czechanada]

Yes, let every continent/subcontinent on the planet be ruled by an Emperor, with a King ruling over each individual country as a vassal to the Emperor.

We can have culturally specific titles for each continent/subcontinent: Arab countries could have a Caliph ruling over Sultans and Shahs, Turkic countries could have a Khagan ruling over Khans, South Asian countries could have a Maharaja ruling over Rajas, and so forth.

[Distruzionopolis]

I think the question is whether you prefer a democratic monarchy or a democratic republic. It's a debate open in many countries -_o_-

It's not a real monarchy. It's all symbolic.

It's not a real scotsman. It's symbolic.

edit: the above was a joke, Rebel. I was not being serious.

[Czechanada]

It's not a real monarchy. It's all symbolic.

It's not a real scotsman. It's symbolic.

That's not a correct accusation of No True Scotsman.

[Distruzionopolis]

It's not a real scotsman. It's symbolic.

That's not a correct accusation of No True Scotsman.

I'm aware. It was a joke.

[Blakullar]

No. Absolute monarchies fail because the monarch becomes a megalomaniac who's too stupid see beyond his/her own power trip, and constitutional monarchies fail because the monarch is so weak and useless that they essentially become a walking tourist attraction.

[Old Tyrannia]

No. Absolute monarchies fail because the monarch becomes a megalomaniac who's too stupid see beyond his/her own power trip, and constitutional monarchies fail because the monarch is so weak and useless that they essentially become a walking tourist attraction.

Yet so many of the most successful states in history have been governed under one of these systems.

[Shaggai]

No. Absolute monarchies fail because the monarch becomes a megalomaniac who's too stupid see beyond his/her own power trip, and constitutional monarchies fail because the monarch is so weak and useless that they essentially become a walking tourist attraction.

Yet so many of the most successful states in history have been governed under one of these systems.

And so many of the worst, as well. Monarchy has existed for several thousand years, so of course it'll have some success stories. Democracy in its current form has existed for a few hundred.

[Christainville]

Its good and bad, depending on how its used. If its a monarchy where the monarch WORKS, its okay, what I mean by work is supporting the nation abroad, working inside the nation with programs and what not, working on programs and charities. Its things like that, that can build a nations image and its internal pride; also it can develop companies, and future investors all over the world.

A monarch who collects a check for being born is bad, the job must be done. Yet, too many in history and currently, do nothing, that's really helpful. They are out of touch, out of line, don't represent anything but a family of spoiled old brats who cant do anything. So its a bad and good side all depending on use.

[ESTU]

No. No single individual should ever be given absolute power, because Human history has proved that it never ends well.

And he should know, because he's witnessed the entirety of human history. (disclaimer for sarcasm)

[Old Tyrannia]

Yet so many of the most successful states in history have been governed under one of these systems.

And so many of the worst, as well. Monarchy has existed for several thousand years, so of course it'll have some success stories. Democracy in its current form has existed for a few hundred.

It has an awful lot of success stories. Like, virtually every significant civilisation in history has been a monarchy of some sort. Blakullar's assertion that monarchies are doomed to fail is at odds with historical evidence. Unless you take the long view, of course, in which case you'd have to concede that every government is doomed to fail, sooner or later. Nothing lasts forever.

Is adolf hitler a hero? No.

Thank you for your well-thought-ought and enlightening response, oh great intellectual.

[Mystral]

Its not unless its a constitutional monarchy

[Mostrov]

‎

[CTALNH]

Republican Dictatorship model? Meh

Hereditary monarchy? FUCK NO!

[CTALNH]

Is adolf hitler a hero? No.

Thats a matter of perspective.

[MERIZoC]

More acceptable than one-line OP's. How'd this thread last this long anyway?

[Magnifex]

Monarchy could be very good form of goverment but only if it is not a monocracy.

[Socialist Czechia]

So totally seriously: Monarchy is bad in all possible cases. Even in case, when monarchy is constitutional, and monarch is just merely figerehead with literally no power.

Why?

He (or she) is still Head of State, giving legitimacy to anachronist elitism, nobility as whole and right to someone to have some (de facto) power over people just because he (or she) exists.

It's still source of conservatism, even in 'leftist monarchies' and voice of the monarch, despite constitution, often means more than Prime Minister's opinion. And prime ministers, despite what you think, are leaders chosen by the people, but it's still looks all the time, that he's servant of the Monarch.

So REPUBLIC is NECESSARY to overcome ALL old, ancient, pre-capitalist anachronisms, to let society be more progressive and less rigid, to destroy even fascist (elitist) roots in classes.

Swedish Republic, Spanish Republic, Republic of Britain, Republic of Canada etc.

[Escanthea]

As long as the monarch doesn't have too much power there isn't really a problem.
Also, if it is old enough it will rake in so much tourist revenue from people who want to gawk at your palaces and cermonies and such that the cost of the monarch's lifestyle will be pocket change.