Moskitto
13th January 2002, 20:55
Arguements For the monarchy are very flawed, The case against is easy to show in 2 paragraphs.
If the monarchy has no power then what is the point in having it?
If the monarchy does have power then why are the people so willing to live in a dictatorship?
"The Monarchy Provides Stability, Look at Nepal when the monarchy was killed" - In Nepal, the royal family killed each other, this caused mass social unrest. This shows how little stability the monarchy really provides when it was itself that caused the instability themselves.
"The monarchy provides national unity" - This is the biggest load of bollox in history. With growing nationalist movements in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Quebec in countries which are afterall monarchies, this doesn't suggest unity.
"A monarchy has a mandate of the whole people, A president would only have a mandate from his faction" - A president needs to have more support than anyone else to become president, that is the whole point in a president, to give a repressentative who has more support than anyone else. A monarchy doesn't need any support, it is there by default.
"A republic would still cost us money to upkeep" - Yes, With a president you won't have to pay for their private art collections, you won't have to pay for their jubilees, You won't have to pay for the other members of their family. In whole, it's cheaper.
"Monarchies are generally prosperous and stable, republics are not, look at all the dictatorships without monarchs" - This is probably because there are more republics than monarchies. Anyway the majority of monarchies are actually quite repressive, Saudi Arabia is the only country that doesn't have any elections at all rigged or not. Kuwait is the only country that denies women the right to vote.
"Other countries want the monarchy back" - Like who? Oh you mean eastern european former soviet satellite states. It just shows how monarchies are only clung onto by the desperate.
"In Australia they had a referendum and voted no" - The wording didn't make it clear that the new leader would be a native born Australian, thus this made people sceptical about what the difference would be.
"People are born into a monarchy like people are born into a good or bad family" - Are you saying that it’s right that people can be born into families with child abusers, slums, and poverty?
“The prime-minister has an advisor with nearly 50 years experience” - A president hires members of their staff called "Advisors." Also a president in general has had a political career before he became president and thus had quite a lot of first had experience of his own.
“An elected president would mean that people like Hitler can rise to power” - An unelected leader means that there is nothing to stop people like Hitler rising. If the people do not want a leader like Hitler then they won't get one.
If the monarchy has no power then what is the point in having it?
If the monarchy does have power then why are the people so willing to live in a dictatorship?
"The Monarchy Provides Stability, Look at Nepal when the monarchy was killed" - In Nepal, the royal family killed each other, this caused mass social unrest. This shows how little stability the monarchy really provides when it was itself that caused the instability themselves.
"The monarchy provides national unity" - This is the biggest load of bollox in history. With growing nationalist movements in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Quebec in countries which are afterall monarchies, this doesn't suggest unity.
"A monarchy has a mandate of the whole people, A president would only have a mandate from his faction" - A president needs to have more support than anyone else to become president, that is the whole point in a president, to give a repressentative who has more support than anyone else. A monarchy doesn't need any support, it is there by default.
"A republic would still cost us money to upkeep" - Yes, With a president you won't have to pay for their private art collections, you won't have to pay for their jubilees, You won't have to pay for the other members of their family. In whole, it's cheaper.
"Monarchies are generally prosperous and stable, republics are not, look at all the dictatorships without monarchs" - This is probably because there are more republics than monarchies. Anyway the majority of monarchies are actually quite repressive, Saudi Arabia is the only country that doesn't have any elections at all rigged or not. Kuwait is the only country that denies women the right to vote.
"Other countries want the monarchy back" - Like who? Oh you mean eastern european former soviet satellite states. It just shows how monarchies are only clung onto by the desperate.
"In Australia they had a referendum and voted no" - The wording didn't make it clear that the new leader would be a native born Australian, thus this made people sceptical about what the difference would be.
"People are born into a monarchy like people are born into a good or bad family" - Are you saying that it’s right that people can be born into families with child abusers, slums, and poverty?
“The prime-minister has an advisor with nearly 50 years experience” - A president hires members of their staff called "Advisors." Also a president in general has had a political career before he became president and thus had quite a lot of first had experience of his own.
“An elected president would mean that people like Hitler can rise to power” - An unelected leader means that there is nothing to stop people like Hitler rising. If the people do not want a leader like Hitler then they won't get one.