Why should an inherently undemocratic institution of royalty be supported by democratic governments?

Question

Can anyone convincingly prove to me the worth/relevancy of royalty in western societies today?

Answer 1

Many people make an emotional investment in the leader of their nation. In a monarchy, this is the monarch, who is the Head of State but not Head of Government (at least in constitutional monarchies). Thus removing the Head of Government is less difficult and less of a trauma.

Frankly I can think of several US Presidents it would have been wonderful to remove from office before their terms were up.

More, the monarch can act as a symbol and moderator "above the fray" of day-to-day politics. As such, Juan Carlos of Spain did much to negate a would-be military coup several years ago.

But I must also say that--IMO--democracy is not something holy. It is a good idea, a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. That something is "undemocratic" is not as total an indictment in my eyes as it may be in yours.

Answer 2

Magic, Bacteria Boy and Dunromin have all got the right idea. If you elect a president and a parliament/congress then the president is a politician. The parliament is also elected and is there by the will of the people. Who should have the final say? The parliament is much more representative than any single person in the presidency. So you get a conflict between the head of state and the parliament. This has been a problem in France, Italy and much of south America for decades. The US got around it, almost, with their carefully written constitution and bill of rights but a lot of people outside the US say the president is just an elected king with more powers than even George III ever had. It's better to have a largely ceremonial head of state with strictly limited powers. Thus the British and some other constitutional monarchies,

Answer 3

It is vitally important that the head of the armed forces is seperate from the head of the country. There is only so much power one person should hold. There was a case in spain i believe when the armed forces started to stage a coo, but the then king went on tv and told them to stop, and they did. Also take the case in Thailand. The democratic system was failing, with corruption rife in the government. The armed forces with the kings concent have been able to remove the currupt government peacefully, unlike in other places were there is much civil war.

The constitutional monarchy is there for when things go wrong, and to smile and wave when everything is fine. If it weren't for royalty, who would our troops fight for? The battle cry "For the KING!" (or queen) is much better than "For the democratically elected party currently sitting with a majority in the houses of parliment!"

Answer 4

sturdy question. there's a stability between government which serves and government which leads, and there is likewise a controversy approximately how public coverage is interpreted and purposes in institutions. a sturdy occasion in Australia is the 1968 referendum. This become pushed forward by ability of the political will of an extremely few people who made a brilliant number of noise, yet remains the utmost ever 'particular' vote turnout. the will of the individuals is often for the status quo, fairly than substitute ~ think of the end results of Chamberlain's reaction to the will of the individuals for fending off a combat have been maintained lots longer, pre-WW2? especially situations governments could assume social tendencies, on different events they could take management. enforcing public coverage in institutions is likewise a perplexing ask. that is super, as an occasion, for a poliitian to declare 'no baby will stay in poverty' and individuals to bounce up and down applauding, yet what does that propose and how can it become a actuality of each and everyday life as a replace of purely words? Programmes could be placed into place, and not all human beings will like them. mom and father who've infants removed from their care and lose pension reward, working example, are going to be unhappy, especially situations vocally, and the media might whip their case right into a 'political' situation, yet for the coverage to paintings infants might could be removed from abuse and overlook. The added from the centre issues are, the extra needed it could be to introduce rules and programmes that are unpopular with people who might have actively adversarial the occasion making coverage at first. and of direction, there is the perpetual tendency of bureaucrats to obfuscate! of direction, optimally, the 'will' of the voters is finished, however the super question is 'in what way can this superb be performed'. Cheers :-)

Answer 5

The UK royalty rule by the consent of the people under the terms of the Magna Carta, so in a sense UK royalty hold their position by the grace of the people and hence they are democratic. With so much and a growing opposition to Charles and Camilla, we might see the UK public choose not to support Charles as King and the choice would be either to end what is now just a tradition or skip to William

Answer 6

Because it's worthwhile having a head of state independent of partisan politics. It doesn't have to be as big and expensive as Britain's is, but there is value in having a figurehead whom people of all backgrounds and opinions can respect.

Answer 7

Yes, it's a contradiction. Notice that nobody has suggested that form of government for Iraq.

Answer 8

Let's face it.

Royalty dresses WAY better than democrats.

Answer 9

Since i'm not a royal i vote we get rid of all of them.
Unless you could hook me up with Prince Felipe of Spain that's one tall sexy fine man.......oh yeah

Answer 10

because it is valid where it is the way they have chosen