NationStates

What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?

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

Parliamentary constitutional monarchies are a good form of government because they still leave the representation in the hands of the people.

hell na

Yes. Very good.

Nope.

Geilinor wrote:Parliamentary constitutional monarchies are a good form of government because they still leave the representation in the hands of the people.

While still maintaining the cultural significant monarchy.

If it's a constitutional monarchy like the UK, Netherlands, or Japan then I see no problem with it.

If it's an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Tsarist Russia, then no.

what form of monarchy ?

Hereditary ? Elective ?

Absolute ? Constitutional ? Ceremonial ?

You probably need to be a bit more specific.

Constitutional Monarchy.

Kolle Imperium wrote:

Geilinor wrote:Parliamentary constitutional monarchies are a good form of government because they still leave the representation in the hands of the people.

While still maintaining the cultural significant monarchy.

Personally, I don't see why a monarchy is necessary to preserve culture, but if the question is "Is it a good form of government?", some forms have proven themselves.

It depends on the actual shape of the monarchic regime. One can't really tell if the "monarchy" itself is good or not. The same goes with a "republic"- everything depends on the particular case.

Personally, living in a republican state and being a republican myself, I can say that constitutional, parliamentary monarchy is as good as parliamentary republic. And even constitutional monarchy without too powerful parliament may be not too bad- see: Austro-Hungary, which compared to some of European states of the period were rather progresive and liberal (of course one should bear in mind the context of the epoque). Even an absolute monarchy might be good and moderate- see: Sweden in 17th and 18th century.

Therefore I would say that a monarchy may be a good form of government, yet it also may be bad form. Everything depends on circumstances...

All governments fail in one way or another. But it really depends on the type of monarchy. The Monarchy that exists in Saudi Arabia is a lot worse than the British Monarchy. Republics are the best form of government. Government does best when it derives from the people.

It promotes strong, decisive and firm leadership as well as nationalism and unity.

I would support it under certain conditions.

@OP- short OP not good.

Depends on the monarch themselves, I guess.

The vagina you are birthed from does not hold any indication of your capacity to leave. The fact that monarchy still exists is astounding.

If it is a constitutional monarchy that the people are happy with, it is perfectly fine. Consider the UK, Japan, and Denmark. Free democracies with monarchs.

I myself prefer a republic, though.

Elective Monarchies work well, depending on who elects the Monarch.

Personally, I've always been a fan of the Vatican:

The only Theocratic, Elective, Non-Hereditary, Absolute Monarchy.

The Francoist Empire wrote:What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?

What's your opinion?

I personally think that a monarchy is good form of government.

Benierra wrote:

The Francoist Empire wrote:What do you think? Is monarchy acceptable or not?

What's your opinion?

I personally think that a monarchy is good form of government.

I'm neutral in the debate.

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

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.

Hespero-Belkia wrote:If it's a constitutional monarchy like the UK, Netherlands, or Japan then I see no problem with it.

If it's an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Tsarist Russia, then no.

Problem is the Dutch royal family gets a part of the tax we, the common people, pay and then randomly build giant houses in random countries. Or the government uses our money to buy an aweful ship for the former queen. Stating it's a present from the common people. Thing is, we've never been asked about our money being put in that damn ship.

No, even the Dutch constitutional monarchy is a complete disaster.

Sure, IF you're the monarch.

United Batavian States wrote:

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

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.

Hespero-Belkia wrote:If it's a constitutional monarchy like the UK, Netherlands, or Japan then I see no problem with it.

If it's an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Tsarist Russia, then no.

Problem is the Dutch royal family gets a part of the tax we, the common people, pay and then randomly build giant houses in random countries. Or the government uses our money to buy an aweful ship for the former queen. Stating it's a present from the common people. Thing is, we've never been asked about our money being put in that damn ship.

No, even the Dutch constitutional monarchy is a complete disaster.

Do you at least get substantial amounts of tax income from them like in Britain? Britain is actually making a couple Million dollars from their royal family thanks to tourism, despite the maintenance costs.

The short answer: no.
Long answer: nooooooooooo.

The constitutional monarchies of our day have proven themselves not too bad.

Although they are pretty damn expensive.