Monarchy or Republic?

I think that a monarchy is much better. I look around the world at the elected leaders of the world and think that on the average, most of them are not qualified to lead a country. They have to be constantly thinking about what the electorate in their country wants them to do instead of what is best for their country. A king is the best leader for a country. A king is not elected and can do waht is best for their country without being afraid of not being reelected. A king also does not have to bribed like many politians becaause a king is already rich.

In my opinion a Republic is the way to go;At least the people get to vote.What good is a King or Queen that sucks up tax dollars but doesn't serve the people or have any real political power? Seems like a rather outdated way of governing to me.A President can at least be voted out every 4 years if he or she isn't productive in some way .The same goes for our Representatives they must serve their respective districts or it's hit the road jack.

I have only lived in the U.S. where ther's a President. And he is kept in check by the Congress, the Congress has to approve what laws he makes. And even then it doesn't really effect your day to day life who is president.A monarchy wouldn't work here. It is hard to get most americans to follow the laws we have now, they wouldn't follow a monarch.From a far a Parlamentary Monarchy looks good to me. you have the king or Queen who is the symbol of the country and a Parliment that runs the country.Here the president tries to do both. And most of them are bad at one or both jobs.Is America respected or hated all depends on the present president.

Right now, I'd prefer Anarchy. well, at least 20%, but it does get me into political trouble. main reason being, is because they want to combine Canada, the US and Mexico into one state, and change our currency to the Amero, and place chips in our arm which is mandatory by May 2008. Our Government is actually ran by the banks, not the people. Our last great president was Kennedy, and he was shot. Personally, I think it is kinda cool to have a king and Queen.And, passing it down generation to generation prevents it from changing too much. The problem with a presidency, is that it changes every 4-8 years, and people are never happy. you get it the way you like it for 4-8 years, and then the whole country changes when the next party is elected. that just makes it confusing,and ticks people off to no end. keep in mind, all governments fail. there is no exception to the rules. absolute corruption corrupts absolutely.

I prefer Republic than Monarchy in this case however, I significantly prefer democratic because of its freedom to speech, voice and others.

hey, in our country we dont have that, so i wish we have king's and queen's..if i take it my way,i would want to have a king and queen.. for a change.. coz ,here in our country..all of them our playing smart, so your not sure who to vote and who to trust. :(

As an American, I don't know what it would be like to live in a country with a royal family. I really must say that I don't understand it. Your government really is like mine, the real power rest in the hands of those who are elected. The nuts and bolts are a little bit different. The one thing I just don't understand is you have a powerless monarchy. I mean what is the point of having a king or a queen that is suppose to be the highest authority, but has absolutely no power. In my country, we have a president, he is the most powerful one person in the country. He has the power to approve laws or veto them. I am definately a supporter of the American Republic. I can't honestly say that I know one person in the USA that if given the choice would support a monarchy over the system we have today.

I agree wholeheartedly with livewyre. It astonishes me that our hard-earned taxes pay the salaries of a bunch of petty, lying, sly, conniving, power-hungry back-biters that make up the UK government. I despise the thought that we pay literally millions to allow them to spend their days seeking good publicity for themselves and trying to make eachother look bad. I'm not a great fan of monarchy either! I like the ideal of communism, for a country to be run by and for the benefit of it's citizens, but human greed will never allow that to be fairly and evenly administered. As has been seen in former and current communist countries, government administrators who should be servants of the people attain too much power.

Monarchy every time. Why? Because, as you said, they are a stabilising influence on politics. Prime Ministers can come and go of all political flavours but a King or Queen are there as the focal point of the nation for their lifetime.

I'm from the UK and I think the monarchy is great! People say they're a waste of money... they arn't in touch with society... have no use in modern day Britain. I agree that they are absolutely useless but I don't care, they're great for many things - moral, nationalism, tourism, etc. I'm proud of our Monarchal history and would hate to have a president. I don't think it makes any difference, democratically - we still have an elected representative government. Our electoral system is a bit out dated but that's nothing to do with the Monarchy. Are you proud of your Monarchy?

I don't really favor one from the other. I belong to a democratic republic with Presidential type of government. The president is vested with executive power, the house of representatives with the legislations and the judiciary with the implementation and interpretation of the laws of the land. Those countries that has parliamentary monarchy are like that because it has been shaped by their history and culture. Countries like ours doesn't have kings or queens because we had to contend with being colonized and subjugated for hundreds of years and being under a foreign power. The same thing also happened to what is now USA. The native kings and queens that we have and our old system of government just went into nothingness when foreign power imposed their own system on us. Today, our system and government is what it is now because of what we have gone through as a people and as a nation.

If having a figurehead in the form of a non ruling monarchy comforts you and is a meaningful symbol for you then there is nothing wrong with it. I know as Americans we don't get why they are entitled to wealth they did not earn but we have nothing to say about it.

Personaly, i couldnt live under a monarchy. I like being able to selectmy leaders and know that those leaders are answerable only to me and not a king or queen. we may not have a perfect system here but what is?

We have Republic here in India. India is considered as the largest democratic republic in the whole world. But, yes, democracy also has some evils which might be spared if there exists parliamentary monarchy. Due to liberal policies in our country we face a lot of corruption, red-tapism and other such evils in the society. Due to democracy 1/3 majority is a must from the ruling party to come into existance. Moreover, if any law is to be passed it has to go through both the houses and then to the president. But many a times such laws are only beneficial to the politicians and not to the general public. Here, the president has less powers when compared to the prime minister unlike in other nations where president is considered the ultimate authority in any circumstances.

The Royalty in a Parlamentary Monarchy are nothing more than the richest recipients of welfare in the world. Their claim to fame is just "lucky sperm". ;~D

We have a monarchy in the UK, so this is a hot topic for us. Personally I am not very keen on ANY politicians so I don't think monarchy is so bad.. It's not ideal admittedly but I am of the opinion that anybody who WANTS power should be denied it!! A monarch born into the role as leader has no choice and will probably not be a megalomaniac.. whereas anybody voted into power has stepped on friends and family to attain their lofty position. Our political system favours liars and short-term thinking (ie. 5 year term, MUST bow to the popular vote every 5 years). Democracy has failed to adequately replace the monarchy. In Wales, the 'assembly' government is likely to comprise of all the losers of the vote - that's just plain ridiculous. Let me explain - the most votes were recorded by the Labour party, however any combination of four parties could form a majority government... For example if the Liberal Party and Plaid Cymru (local nationalists) could reach agreement, they could form a Government even though the both LOST the election...!!! This is not a fantasy scenario, it's actually happening right now. Fortunately politicians are naturally incompetent nasty little back-biters, so they are completely pre-occupied with this at the moment, each desperate to out-do the others... consequently some agreement will be reached at some point. But do I care? will it make any difference to my life whatsoever?? NO I couldn't give a damn.... Ohhhh now what was the question..?? oh yeah monarchy - I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say it's undemocratic and archaic, but tell me how it is worse than being ruled by all the losers of your last election??? And even worse, if you don't have a monarch you have to have a president - I have a question for you... Please compare the dignity and integrity of ANY monarch you know and compare it to ANY president you have ever heard of??? The only one that could come close in my opinion is President Carter... and I bet he would favour monarchy over presidents any day...

Monarchy is the past... At least you can oust a President if/when u don't like them. Kings/Queens are politicians like all other politicians, except they cost alot more money to taxpyers. I'd definitely go for a strong president/head of government, elected directly by people, with no more than 2 mandates, 8-10 years in power.