constitutional monarchy?

Question

please give me some pros and cons...tell me your opinion about constitutional monarchy and executive monarchy...

thanx

best regards from germany

@zubbie4naija: a do a lot of research...that is why i am here also asking this question. it is important for me to hear and listen to your opinions...i only want to know, what 'the nation' has to say about this topic... because we dont have a (constitutional) monarchy like the british people do.

Answer 1

As a system of government, constitutional monarchy has many strengths. One is that it separates out the ceremonial and official duties of the Head of State from party politics. Another is that it provides stability and continuity, since the Head of State remains the same even as governments come and go. The Sovereign governs according to the constitution - that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will.
A Constitutional Monarch is NOT an absolute monarchy where the monarch has free reign. As a constitutional monarch, The Queen cannot make or pass legislation, and must remain politically neutral. On almost all matters the Queen acts on the advice of (elected) ministers.

The cons of having a constitutional monarchy is that the monarchy can be perceived as irrelevant and superfluous because it must maintain neutrality and is mostly concerned with ceremonial tasks. It also can be very expensive to keep the monarchy in the style that they are accustomed to. This has been addressed more in recent years though and the Queen actually pays taxes which is something her ancestors never did.

Answer 2

Constitutional Monarchy Pros And Cons

Answer 3

A Constituion limits a Monarch's ability to function. The whole point of having a Monarch is so that you can have one person efficiently make a decision and impliment it without waiting for a large legislative body to argue it out, wasting time, and sometimes coming up with answers inconsistent with previous policies. A Monarch can give you greater consistency over a longer period of time than an ever-changing membership of a large group of individuals. Also, a Monarch is not subject to polls or re-elections and so does not need to take bribes as campaign contirbutions or pander to polls and majorities, but can consistently follow a policy that is ethicaL and moral and consistent with a set of values throughout his reign. If you are going to have a Monarch there is not point in limiting or hampering him with a Constitution.

Answer 4

I would go for John Locke's interpretation: “life, health, liberty, and possessions". In his last work he defended the concept of unlimited wealth accumulation, a very classical liberal- much like myself. However, I do like our monarchy as a ceremonial head of state, I think the Queen does a bang up job.

Answer 5

one pro about monarchies is that reform and government action is/can be enacted quickly since decisions wont need to pass through the often slow to act legislative branch. the cons of having an head of state with near-absolute power are pretty obvious though - even if there is a constitution (which can easily be suspended when there is a monarch or dictator at the helm).

Answer 6

It is only for show, as the era of functioning monarchies imploded in the aftermath of World War One.

Answer 7

There's no need.

A government by the people and by the people is much better.

Answer 8

well u're gonna have to find out about that yourself because it can be researched but maybe you're just lazy to do that. tsk tsk