Phoenix Wright Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 The issue here is that the monarch, since they are not elected, do not have to pander to a certain party. In the two party system, politicians need to affiliate themselves with a certain party in order to have any chance at winning. An un affiliated monarch would be a way to curb the influence of both parties. correct, the monarch wouldn't have to. but, in an n-party system, the elected leaders will have to find ways to pander to the monarch in order for things to actually happen the way they want them to (and were elected to make happen). in the us, both the house of reps and senate are republican-controlled majorities. if the monarch is conservative, the minority party's hopes of accomplishing anything at all doesn't exist. the monarch will always side with his own beliefs. if the monarch is liberal, nothing the majority argues over matters. in a legislative system set up like how most of the democratic world has it, an arbitrary, tie-breaker ruler has far too much power in the legislative process. it cannot work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 So would you suggest the monarch as a mere symbol? Maybe my system isn't pure democracy, I don't know" maybe it isn't perfect, but neither is pure democracy. I believe that sometimes the people need restraining as much as an autocratic ruler. You might disagree, but to each his own. A Constitutional Monarchy just seems like a good compromise to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) i would suggest no monarch at all. the introduction of a monarch with real power in addition to the existing governments of the western world would throw those respective governments into disarray. the president has veto powers, but, unlike the proposed monarch, its use has consequences. the power to veto a decision is probably one of the most powerful tools in a (lawful, uncorrupted) leader's tool belt. to arbitrarily decide things for a nation, even under the restriction of the legislature being in "gridlock," is fairly destabilizing not only for democratic governments, but of any government. a constitutional monarchy with powers as you've suggested isn't a comprosmise--what is proposed is a fundamental restructuring of our democratic system and violates early american principles (rulers should not be decided by birthright). i don't think that the public has changed its opinion on hereditary rulers. a democratic republic isn't a pure democracy. also, there are plenty of things the people can't decide, like the judges appointed in scotus. it is debatable whether this is best for the united states or not. the way i see it, the world does not need kings, caliphs, emperors, or what have you. Edited July 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted July 4, 2015 Author Share Posted July 4, 2015 First of all, I already admitted that a monarchy would not really work in the America of today. What exactly is the difference between a presidential veto and a royal veto? The President surely shows restraint, but I don't see why a monarch is any less likely to show restraint. Now, the world most certainly needs monarchs. It needs them to provide a head of state above politics, to restrain the power of the people if need be, and to provide a better symbol of unity than any President could. It's clear that at this point this debate is going nowhere, so should we bury the hatchet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.