Monarchy vs Republic

[Distruzio]

Someone take a wild guess which I'd vote for...

[Chinese Regions]

Someone take a wild guess which I'd vote for...

How's your buddy Kim Jong-Un doing?

[Nadkor]

Republic, monarchies are essentially a form of a dictatorships and absolutism which can trample the freedoms of men too easily. Now yes I know republics can do the same but nowhere near as easily.

Evidence please? Because I don't know of nearly as many monarchies descending into absolutism as I know republics descending into dictatorships.

Monarchies don't "descend" into absolutism. From the idealised point of view of the monarch the perfect monarchy is an absolute monarchy, and, indeed, most monarchies were absolutist at one point in time (including in the predecessors of the UK); if anything we've "descended" into democracy.

[Forsher]

Which particular brand of monarchy vs which particular brand of republic?

A parliamentary democracy is a parliamentary democracy regardless of whether the head of state is a monarch or not. A presidential republic and a parliamentary republic are very different systems.

The actual system is, generally speaking, much more important than whether the person at the top is elected or not.

Ah, words of wisdom without actually taking a side... very clever.

In my eyes the most sensible post of the thread thus far.

Eh, both monarchies and republics have their own pros and cons. Constitutional monarchies limit the power of the ruling family, whilst giving the government a watchful eye in case of political corruption.

Where do people get the absurd idea that monarchy is a good check/balance against corruption?

Corruption is a poor argument for those who deal in absolute monarchies and republics. Quite frankly an absolute monarchy has no restraint* and so what we view as corrupt is very easy to achieve. A republic is more corruptible than a constitutional monarchy as ultimately no-role is stable. That's not to say one doesn't find corruption anywhere.

*Which is why they are rarer, even historically, than one might think.

Which particular brand of monarchy vs which particular brand of republic?

A parliamentary democracy is a parliamentary democracy regardless of whether the head of state is a monarch or not. A presidential republic and a parliamentary republic are very different systems.

The actual system is, generally speaking, much more important than whether the person at the top is elected or not.

Yes, it very much does matter, because the idea that the constitutional monarch of a parliamentary democracy is in charge or at the top of anything is a fiction that has no correspondence with reality. Constitutional monarchs persist only because of intertia, not because they are actually important.

Or, perhaps, because they're cheaper than elections. Or, in the cases of places like NZ both culturally and historically important as well as being much cheaper. Anyone trying to justify a republic in NZ has to first present a very good case as to why change is needed just to get past the cost factor.

Needless to say, that argument doesn't exist.

Monarchism is an outdated, vile system that grants someone a title and position of respect purely because they happen to be born into a certain family. Why we have not abandoned this archaic institution I will never know.

Hilariously the concept of a constitutional monarchy is a more recent one than that of a republic.

Most constitutional monarchies ARE Republics in every way except for the symbolism of a monarch.

Let's just use republic in the not a monarchy sense, eh? So much simpler and it avoids persistent use of a dictionary.

Why not both? A nation can have a monarch (with substantial power) as well as a senate and a constitution. Because of the greater efficiency and less corruption, a monarch who has limited power and has the welfare of the people in mind is a better system than even a republic (which is the second-best system).

Senates? Constitutions? *Shudders*

Constitutional Monarchy wins.

One hopes so.

No, that inertia.

It's being used in a slightly less literal sense. Resistance to change in general.

You're being asked to define a typo. Not that I noticed the first time.

Why not both? A nation can have a monarch (with substantial power) as well as a senate and a constitution. Because of the greater efficiency and less corruption, a monarch who has limited power and has the welfare of the people in mind is a better system than even a republic (which is the second-best system).

Such regimes historically, have shown no regard for the welfare of their subjects. Monarchs with power are, as a rule, venal and self-serving.

I'd say that's unfair. Generally speaking no-one in power no matter the source has had any concern for the welfare of their subjects, historically.

Constitutional monarchy with a parliament. I.e. the UK.

The lack of corruption in the governments of many nations with such a form of government has nothing to do with their monarchies.

Also, nations with such as government can be corrupt...look to Papua New Guinea for proof of that.

Nations with any sort of government can be corrupt. Speaking in terms of chances to be corrupt, constitutional monarchies have the edge over most. But that's chances not impossible.

I would say keep the constitutional monarchy. Your queen is a ceremonial figurehead of your nation's culture.

I'm gonna guess that you're talking about the UK here (as I'm so commonly told that she is amazingly famous and we'd all revert to apes that live in mud huts if we were to remove her).

The Queen, like many other monarchs, may be a ceremonial figurehead, but that doesn't justify her inherited position, if someone does represent a country's culture then that is fine (although I'd argue the British queen represents a ton of aspects of our culture that we should be ashamed of), but I really don't see why that should give someone the lifelong position of head of state.

You'll note that unless ones mother is the head of state and you're the first born and she dies in childbirth no-one is ever head of state for their entire life... just in case I've misunderstood lifelong.

Someone, somewhere, once tried to say that they didn't earn the role. They still have it, is that not earning it?

Ever heard of apoloticism? Many of us subscribe to this idea.

You think someone who never had to do anything to get their position is going to appreciate what they have and try to keep it? An elected figurehead has to actively work to get it and then maintain it. To do that, they have to do what the people want. A monarch doesn't have to appease the people unless they get unruly.
Furthermore, making someone a ruler simply because of who their parents were is one of the stupidest things in the world. While genetics certainly plays a role in your leadership ability, it's almost entirely based on your own experiences. In a democracy, the leader's experiences are a citizen's experiences. In a monarchy, the leader has no way to empathize with their subjects because they have no idea of what it is like.

Come to think of it, it may have been you. It could have been, after all it was on NSG but that doesn't matter really.

Experience. I can honestly say I've never heard that as an argument for republicanism. I think there's a reason for that. Especially considering that a recent Republican candidate has been heavily criticised for lacking that empathising trait.

As is anyone with power.

But monarchs more so, because they have more power and less accountability.

No, I think it's because history has more of them and thus a greater chance of being remembered.

Republic. Everybody is born equal, and the people in high positions should be elected rather than being born into them. Besides, the monarchs in Norway serve badly as monarchs here as they are off Danish and English descent, not Norwegian. Also, our national holiday is a celebration of the country, not the monarchs, and this is the day that is probably the most "joyful" of the national celebrations here. On this day, the flag, and the celeration of our culture, our nation and the people is far more important than the monarchs.

Very similar to "the Queen is German!" I call this Mutuism... guests in your own land. It's quite frankly disturbing.

most monarchies aren't the same nationality as the country they own, its what comes of selecting leaders by birth.

Actually religion matters more. Also, most royal families bagan with a strong man and then those strong enough to keep it.

Hence the end of Harold II.

most monarchies aren't the same nationality as the country they own, its what comes of selecting leaders by birth.

That is a good point; the Tsars became increasingly more and more Germanic as time went on.

The Uncle of All Europe.

Politics of the blood is what it was, really. It was done between different familes. What's this? The Smiths are angry with the Blacks? Send young Elizabeth to marry John, end problem.

More to come, just a cautionary measure posting now.

[Conscentia]

A republic is more corruptible than a constitutional monarchy as ultimately no-role is stable.

What do you mean "no-role is stable"?

[Conscentia]

Nations with any sort of government can be corrupt. Speaking in terms of chances to be corrupt, constitutional monarchies have the edge over most.

How do you know that they have the edge over most?

[Yankee Empire]

Monarchism is an outdated, vile system that grants someone a title and position of respect purely because they happen to be born into a certain family. Why we have not abandoned this archaic institution I will never know.

Reupublics are an outdated, vile system that grants someone a title and position of respect purely because they happen to be voted into office. Why we have not abandoned this archaic institution I will never know.

I really don't have a huge problem with Republics or Monarchism in themselves it all depends on specifics and saying monarchy is outdated is just stupid modernist talk, Rome had a republic before it replaced it with an autocracy that at times functioned like a monarchy and an age of monarchs ruled europe long after republics and democracies were conceived.

[Yankee Empire]

Nations with any sort of government can be corrupt. Speaking in terms of chances to be corrupt, constitutional monarchies have the edge over most.

How do you know that they have the edge over most?

His own bias.

[Radiatia]

Absolute monarchy? Hell no.

But yes I support constitutional monarchy. I am yet to find a republic that has a superior HDI, corruption index, standard of living, etc than a constitutional monarchy. The only republics that I can think of that are even close to being decent are Finland and Switzerland.

So while a republic may sound appealing, in reality they leave gaping holes open for corruption and the numbers don't lie.

[The USOT]

A republic is more corruptible than a constitutional monarchy as ultimately no-role is stable.

Well that is just absurd to every extent.

Dictators have stable roles. Stalin lead the USSR for about 25 years!

And then we have the issue of whether or not the monarch has power or not within a constitutional monarchy.
If it does, then it has hte potential to abuse a system to its own interests.
If it doesnt, then we still have the issue that the "republic" side of the constitutional monarchy is still corrupt regardless of the monarch.

I see no way in which a monarch has any positive bearing on corruption.

[Yankee Empire]

I see no way in which a monarch has any positive bearing on corruption.

If the soveirgn isn't corrupt then the government isn't corrupt, wherin a republic the distribution of power multiplies the possiblity for corruption.

Also a King has less reason to be corrupt they already have wealth and power and can gain more legitmately, theirs far less for them to gain by making shady deals.

[The USOT]

I see no way in which a monarch has any positive bearing on corruption.

If the soveirgn isn't corrupt then the government isn't corrupt, wherin a republic the distribution of power multiplies the possiblity for corruption.

Also a King has less reason to be corrupt they already have wealth and power and can gain more legitmately, theirs far less for them to gain by making shady deals.

So your going down the whole "benevolent ruler" argument?

Monarchies throughout history entirely disagree with you. In every way.
The only ones which have notbee horribly corrupt have been constitutional monarchies in which the monarch has no power and is a figure head. And in these cases the government is often STILL corrupt. (for instance, I cant recall Queen Elizabeth doing much about the recent government corruption inquiries here in the UK. Or before actually...)

[The Nuclear Fist]

Also a King has less reason to be corrupt they already have wealth and power and can gain more legitmately, theirs far less for them to gain by making shady deals.

So instead of being corrupt, they just proceed to take anything and everything they want without regard to the populace? That sounds terrible.

[Forsher]

Monarchy is a stupid and archaic system. Bowing and scraping to an individual who claims to be the "direct descendant of God" or "God's representative on Earth." Like slavery and flat earth belief Monarchy will eventually bite the dust. As someone from the UK I wish all other countries who have Elizabeth II as their head of state would pull their collective fingers out and become Republics!

Because it's expensive. The Queen turns a profit for the UK, or at least doesn't lose as much as the PM, while we don't have to pay much to support her... a few visits here and there.

That's true and it does tend to happen because of differing origins but it's not fixed, what if a English monarch does know the Norwegian language huh? Also what's a better a monarch that's a dick and tyrant to his citizens but still knows their culture and language or a monarch that doesn't and has a free and liberal society?
Knowing the nation is not the only thing that makes a good leader.

Also, isn't it just as (if not more) important to know the people? To know how they live their lives, what challenges they face, and how they should be led?

A monarch can't do this, as there is nowhere in the world where the majority of the population have had such a privileged upbringing.

One can be a monarch and still be poor. There's nothing inherent about that sort of thing. It also isn't like politicians aren't even worse at this as a whole.

Yet, many monarchs were looked at fondly during their reigns.

What difference does to the operation of the state it make whether the head of state at the top with very little or no actual power is hereditary (e.g. Sweden) or the head of state at the top with very little or no actual power is elected (e.g. Ireland)?

You're making the wrong comparison. Because the notion that the President of Ireland or the King of Sweden are actually in charge is entirely fictional.

The people who are really in charge are the parliaments and their leadership in both cases.

I am inclined to think you're missing the point quite spectacularly. I add that past bit because your reasons against are what I see as being the reasons why the points have to be (in your mind) made.

I see the first post of the next page confirms this.

I personally think that having a person with a long-term investment in the success of a country, yet is not bound to the whims of voters, is a good thing provided they are appropriately checked by an elected body of some sort, and there is some sort of mechanism to eject those monarchs who are insane. Although, really, such things often take care of themselves. 18th century Russia had a great deal of success with the 'murder your way to the throne' scheme.

In the past, autocratic monarchs have had some success. Louis XIV, Peter I, Catherine II, Maria Theresa, but such success is generally dependent on getting a person with a vision and the motivation to achieve it onto the throne, and for every Louis XIV you have a Louis XVI, or a Nicholas II. Or a Charles XII who, while brilliant, directed his brilliance towards smacking other countries around.

Thus, you need an elected body of some kind which is capable of balancing the monarchy and carrying the country through the inevitable mediocre rulers, while at the same time, a suitably talented monarch can motivate the elected portion of the government to achieve his/her goals.

Of course, that is the ideal situation. In reality the elected officials would probably seek to obstruct everything the monarchy did and obtain more power for themselves.

Which is why fear of the unknown in politics is the best state of affairs. We're all pretty sure of this but that could happen yet, better not upset this tower of blocks.

According to many economists and historians, the best form of government is not charcaterized by its democratic agenda but characterized by its pledge to a Sovereign Monarch. Most of the top 10 nations regarding its HDI, corruption levels and GDP per capita are constitutional or absolute monarchies, leaving only 2 or 3 spots for republics, according to the World Bank and the IMF.

Excuse me, what absolute monarchy ranks better about HDI than republics?
And in the current constitutional monarchies, monarchs are Heads of State with little more than nominal powers. Everything else (policies, administration, etc) is firmly in the hands of officials elected (directly or indirectly) by citizens... just like it is in republics.

In my view if one wants a system that has shown willingness to adapt a monarchy is the way to go. That is why most monarchies are wildly different to what they used to be. Republics have been historically unwilling to adapt.

Now, there's no real difference between the two so change is literally pointless.

thats not fair. thats just arbitrary. a lottery is equally immune from outside influence.

when was the last time the queen held our leaders accountable?

Lottery? Gamblers Anonymous would have a few words with you. I'm sure that industry would love random chance to enter the draw.

Also, you'll have a bunch of republicans saying the system is too Greek instead of German.

When she looked them in the eye and stared them down until they broke inside and reversed their evil ways. Which is why we never hear about such things, she's too Ninja.

What the fuck.

You need to get a refund from whoever it is you've been paying to teach you constitutional law.

Do you not remember the Succession Crisis of 2010, when Queen Elizabeth ordered Gordon Brown to be locked in the Tower of London until a coalition was formed, or she decided to call another election? For shame.

For you foreigners out there, for quite a long time after the indecisive election, this was all we got from the press:

I swear someone was hanged at that time.

how so? my understanding was there was a war between the republicans and the nationalists (plus monarchists) and the republicans lost.
the nationalists then ruled the country as a nominal monarchy with a nationalist regent.

not all monarchists where on the franquist side (but yeah, franco was monarchist) and spain was oficially a republic until the 50s or 60s i dont remember it very well sorry xD.

Now, I'm pretty sure there was the overthrow of the monarchy. Then there was the civil war. Then there was Franco the Dictator, "In Madrid!" who had the rats shot at some point and then died to be replaced by a monarchy as per his will. Basically he did a Cromwell but was nice about the end.

From 1936 to 1975, Spain was a dictatorship under Franco and only nominally a monarchy. Franco named Juan Carlos as King in 1969 but nevertheless he did not become king until two days after Franco's death.

then a poor monarch he was but a monarch nonetheless. or had he not throughout those years introduced himself as Prince Juan Carlos?

'Ere you ain't Davy Jones are ya? I swear that's his line.

Why should the populace have this right?

Because a people ruled should and must give consent to rule. That is fair, that is good. More importantly, it keeps the leadership tethered to the will of the people, as alienation of them or poor performance will eliminate their chances of winning the next election.

And more to the point, why do you think they don't already?

In most democratic republics and constitutional monarchies where the monarch's power has been suitably neutered, they do. But in those few absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, they do not.

All systems are based on the same application of faith. If there's no faith in the system it never works. This holds true of republics and monarchies.

"I would rather be ruled by one fine lion than two hundred rats of my own species" - Voltaire.

My only stipulation is that it would have to be a kind, compassionate ruler rather than a tyrant.

Personally, I'd rather not be ruled by an animal.

I'd prefer to be ruled by a person who has a vested interest in the populace at large being content, instead of a monarch. Also, what happens if the next monarch is a tyrant? What if the kind, compassionate monarch is terrible at his job?

This is the illustration of my point. They're all subject to the exact same flaw. This is something ignored by everyone else*. When they go wrong they go wrong to the same degree.

*Hyperbole just in case no-one noticed.

[...] whereas a monarch-owner has a vested interest in sustaining or growing the value of a nation's wealth [...]

Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, pre-revolutionary French Empire, most of Roman Emperors, most of the Byzantine Emperors, most feudal leaders, etc, would all disagree. They lived lavish lifestyles whilst the nation suffered. They frittered away whatever wealth and prestige they had to fuel their opulent lifestyles.

He said, vested interest. Nothing in there about actually taking an interest.

May you live in interesting times friend. (The folly of this line of thought.)

A republic is more corruptible than a constitutional monarchy as ultimately no-role is stable.

What do you mean "no-role is stable"?

Well, in a purely elected system one has a group of positions that are ruled by whims. In the name of stability gaining a better idea of the whims is advantageous. Of course, whatever happens one must be willing and able to corrupt.

Nations with any sort of government can be corrupt. Speaking in terms of chances to be corrupt, constitutional monarchies have the edge over most.

How do you know that they have the edge over most?

In systems with more division of power and greater concentration there is more motivation to be corrupt. Bit of a lose-lose I believe.

I don't really see how most of the recent Presidents of the US represented their people either.

I would agree that to many extents that they dont.
However in literal terms, they have been at least voted in with consent by people to be their President.

Some would disagree on the Bush count. On the other hand, the Monarchy is still there which is how it has to be looked at to be fair. An elected thingy must be seen as not being there and its brought in. A monarchy is always in postion.

A republic is more corruptible than a constitutional monarchy as ultimately no-role is stable.

Well that is just absurd to every extent.

Dictators have stable roles. Stalin lead the USSR for about 25 years!

And then we have the issue of whether or not the monarch has power or not within a constitutional monarchy.
If it does, then it has hte potential to abuse a system to its own interests.
If it doesnt, then we still have the issue that the "republic" side of the constitutional monarchy is still corrupt regardless of the monarch.

I see no way in which a monarch has any positive bearing on corruption.

I think I've got this one now. Of course, that doesn't help you as it is yet to be revealed.

Look at the corruption of dictators. They are compared to absolute rulers, are they not? Of course they are. In a constutional monarchy we have a restricted unit that will remain so that is nominally ahead of the fluctuating units around it. However, both restrict each other.

Think of two butch blokes being forced to dance by the teacher in front of their mates. Fear ultimately dictates the actions more than anything. The one in the male role controls the dance but any attempt to alter the status quo would, probably, force the hand of the one in the female role. Both are equally jusged by their mates.

[New England and The Maritimes]

There's not much difference, to be honest. As an example, Machiavelli's advice in The Prince is basically advice for any state of any kind. Not much difference to be had.

[Yankee Empire]

So your going down the whole "benevolent ruler" argument?

Monarchies throughout history entirely disagree with you. In every way.
The only ones which have notbee horribly corrupt have been constitutional monarchies in which the monarch has no power and is a figure head. And in these cases the government is often STILL corrupt. (for instance, I cant recall Queen Elizabeth doing much about the recent government corruption inquiries here in the UK. Or before actually...)

Being that I have read a good amount of history i'd have to say history doesn't disagree with me, there have been just as many benevolent monarchs as their have been terrible ones and then the ones whoe don't fit in either catagory fill out the rest.

Then again people have discrepencies over what makes a good ruler. For every Caligula and Nero there was an Augustus and Marcus Aurelius.

[Yankee Empire]

Also a King has less reason to be corrupt they already have wealth and power and can gain more legitmately, theirs far less for them to gain by making shady deals.

So instead of being corrupt, they just proceed to take anything and everything they want without regard to the populace? That sounds terrible.

Who said without regard to the populace? You may not realize it but smart/good monarchs want the support of their people especially in absolute monarchies, in feudal monarchies an king can focus just on making the nobles happy but when the power is taken from the nobles and invested in the monarch then it is in his and the nations best inerest to keep the people happy.

The whole idea of kings just perpetually oppressing their people is little more than republican propoganda.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Who said without regard to the populace? You may not realize it but smart/good monarchs want the support of their people especially in absolute monarchies, in feudal monarchies an king can focus just on making the nobles happy but when the power is taken from the nobles and invested in the monarch then it is in his and the nations best inerest to keep the people happy.

For every Augustus Caesar you get a Caligula, I'm afraid. Absolutism, whether dictatorial or monarchic, has its limits. One man can only do so much without the constant feedback from the populace at large a democracy has. Democracies are, on average, far more efficient. Additionally, what happens when the successor is a psychotic monster or is laughably terrible at their job? Well, the nation is stuck with them. Unless the people fight in a revolution, in which case I should think that people dying should not be necessary for a change in government.

The whole idea of kings just perpetually oppressing their people is little more than republican propoganda.

Perpetual oppression was the name of the game for quite a few Russian and Ottoman monarchs, quite a few Chinese monarchs, etc.

And personally, I am a bit apprehensive at taking the absolutist beliefs of people who have never experienced absolutism. I have, and it is terrible.

[Nordengrund]

Depends. I go for whichever one is pro- life and capitalist.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Depends. I go for whichever one is pro- life and capitalist.

So if one is a totalitarian dictatorship/monarchy that actively butchers its own people, you'd support it if it also outlawed abortions and employed some sort of Capitalist economic system?

Good to know.

[Forsher]

Depends. I go for whichever one is pro- life and capitalist.

So if one is a totalitarian dictatorship/monarchy that actively butchers its own people, you'd support it if it also outlawed abortions and employed some sort of Capitalist economic system?

Good to know.

Both of you have a point. Ultimately it's not how the government works that matters most but what it does. Clearly, there are a number of considerations there.

[New Finnland]

Monarchy

[Sremski okrug]

Monarchies are a disease. Long live the Republic!

[Turan Federasyonu]

Only republic, the monarchy is a naturally anti-nationalist regime if it is modeled after foreign "example" monarchies

[Martean]

"constitucional monarchies are lees corruptible than reoublics" an argument used very often here in Spain, well, until the kings daughter and his husband were implicated in an ENORMOUS corruption case.

And, (this is not exactly corruption but its a scandal) while Spain is hit by a 25% unemployment rate and poverty spreads along the country, the king, instead of givin an image of austeruty goes to Ruanda to hunt elephants, which is ironic its that he was one of the delegates of the WWF, and he was fired hahahahahahahaha!

i think monarchies CREATE corruption, not stop it.