Monarchy or Republic

[Azog 150]

At least a president does something. And at least can be voted out if he is not wanted. And also his sons and daughters aren't also guaranteed the position he once had for no rational reason apart from a ridiculous backwards middle age tradition of heredity.

In most Western Republics the President fulfils pretty much the same role as the Monarch. And in most Western Republics the President isn't directly voted in by the population, rather they are voted in by Parliament. And as has been pointed out an unpopular Monarch can loose their throne.

[Dr. Croccer]

Presidents are either pointless expensive versions of monarchs with all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits, or way too powerful and given far too much credit.

[VALIS]

You can also dethrone the kings.

Hardly the same as a legitimate elective process now is it?

In most Western Republics the President fulfils pretty much the same role as the Monarch. And in most Western Republics the President isn't directly voted in by the population, rather they are voted in by Parliament. And as has been pointed out an unpopular Monarch can loose their throne.

And? Who says we need to have a President anyway?

[Col. Tartleton]

The United States in theory has a Constitution which in conjunction with the supreme court serves in the role of a Monarch.

Given that they're the only branch of government people pretty universally respect it's a similar situation.

Apolitical, lifelong tenure, earned through merit, signed off upon by elected officials.

I think they're superior to a purely hereditary monarchy system.

Plus I think we've got a pretty solid blend of Liberal and Conservative judges, leaning conservative, but effectively balanced.

[Condottiere 40K]

Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (also known as The Supreme Cultural Revolution Council or SCRC) (in Persian: شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی) , is a conservative-dominated body based in Qom, was set up at the time of Ayatollah Khomeini. Its decisions can only be overruled by Iran's Supreme Leader. Most of its members were appointed by Ayatollah Khamenei, Khomeini's successor.
The President of Iran is designated the chairman of the Council.





This council debates and approves its own relevant issues. The Ayatollah Khomeini used to say that such approved issues must be regarded as laws. He did not mean that Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution was a legislative organ. However, its ratified bills are valid as approved laws. In accordance with the instructions of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, one must not overrule the approved issues of this council.
The headquarters took shape on 12 June 1980 and following a decree by Imam Khomeini the council was charged to take measures in planning for various courses and for the cultural policy of the universities in future on the basis of Islamic culture and through selection of efficient, committed and vigilant professors and for other issues relevant to the Islamic academic revolution.
[1]
The Cultural Revolution Headquarters failed to make universities ready for building the future. The headquarters deleted certain courses such as music as "fake knowledge." Committees established after the 1979 Revolution came to similar conclusions concerning all subjects in the humanities such as law, political sciences, economy, psychology, education and sociology.
The SCRC was formed in December 1984 and substituted the Cultural Revolution Headquarters. In fact, the formation of such an institution was not stipulated in the Constitution. It was formed under the special circumstances that were prevailing in the early stages of the revolution. The council took its legitimacy from the 9 December 1984 decree of the founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Khomeini.
Following the formation of the SCRC, it declared itself the highest body for making policies and decisions in connection with cultural, educational and research activities within the framework of the general policies of the system and considered its approvals indispensable. In fact, the group of 7 (in 1980-83, and then 17 in 1984, and expanded to 36 in 1999) was expected to compile all the cultural policies of the country.

[Azog 150]

And? Who says we need to have a President anyway?

A President or Monarch acts as a check on power which is an important part of any democratic system

[Astaroth]

A President or Monarch acts as a check on power which is an important part of any democratic system

Yes, checks and balances are indeed important, but a president/monarch isn't much of a check on power.

True and significant checks are:

• an indepentent judiciary branch with some sort of supreme court
• federalism
• a two chamber system for lawmaking

An independent second chamber or supreme court beats a single person's whim anytime of the day.

[Uber Patriot]

Quite frankly Republics are downright boring and those who support British republicanism lack a single romantic bone in their body.
I don't want to live under the rule of some suit with slicked back hair and dozens of henchmen vying to take his place.
I much prefer a Queen living in a Magical Palace, preferably with a slightly inappropriate husband, to President Blair or even Cameron.
London wouldn't feel the same without all the trappings of Royalty; Beefeaters and the pretty crowns on postboxes and telephone booths for example.

Compare the following two images:

Exhibit A



Exhibit B



A is rather pretty with gold trim and ponies
B is more like something from the Soprano's


I rest my case.

[Stavroforos]

It seems you made a great case for why we don't need monarchy in the 21st Century.

[Tiberios]

A monarchy in the 21st century is relevant as long as the people want to keep it.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's a complex issue - traditionally, the Japanese Emperor was deliberately isolated by succeeding factions, but yet remains somehow central to the Japanese culture, because it's part of the Japanese identity that makes them unique in their eyes to the rest of the world, besides the fact it's a great rallying cry.

[Future Filmmaker]

Monarchies have no real worth when they extend no visible political power. Sure, people can argue that, in theory, their monarch can step in. But for the most part they are largely ignored.

[thewolflord]

Democratic Republic (no, not the North Korea variety). The People are greater than a monarch, mostly because with monarchs, they are hit or miss whether or not they are effective leaders or not. With a republic, you can just vote the bastards out.