would any people who now live under a republican head of state prefer being a republic or would you like too see yourself live under a monarch as your head of state ?
i myself, have a monarch as my head of state. and i'm quite happy too live with this system. mainly because putting the word ''president'' before any of our present politicians fills me
with horror.
example - president thatcher/blair 'urgh'
always been curious if the peoples of greece, romania etc would like their monarchs to return. seeing as they had no say in their leaving in first place.
same question is open too countries that where once colonial possessions, would you prefer a a monarch too return as your head of state
example:- trinidad&tobago, ghana, fiji
or remove the monarch and have a president as your head of state
example:- new zealand, jamaica, barbados
2007-09-01 12:19:12 · 13 answers · asked by sammmy s 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Speaking from Canada, I'll stay with a monarchy. Having seen how bad a presidency can be, not just the present dude south of the border, but the fact that all of them have been owned by private corporations and pressure groups. Of course, I'm not sure that Charles is the proper person to follow Elizabeth. He failed to show leadership in his marital relationships. All males mess around, but people in high places have to show a bit of couth and keep it in the background.
2007-09-01 12:32:28 · answer #1 · answered by St N 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The two are not mutally exclusive.
You can have a monarchy where ultimate power rests in the hands of the crown -- but still have a republic where appointed representatives of the people make the daily decisions -- most feudal hierarchies work this way.
Republics are not always democratic (voter-population appointed reps) -- and it's more a matter of how the govt functions than who has ultimate power.
But, even in a modern monarchy of any large size, there is going to be some intermediate administration -- and thus, in daily reality, there will be few differences in the bureaucracy and how things get done.
2007-09-01 12:26:33 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm not too keen on being a republic either and always think the 'accident of birth' method of gaining a head of state to be the most truly democratic way of all - i.e. none of us gets to choose, it just happens.
My problem with a republic is exactly what you have said. Couldn't cope with the PM of the day being Head of State and would very much like to know who would be put up for election and how i.e. who chooses the choices we get to choose. (if that makes sense!)
Look at the Mayor of London. It's not the people who choose those in the running and it all turns out just like a general election. i.e. a Mayor is elected but there are still plenty of people who didn't vote for them.
I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise though, if anyone can put my mind at rest.
2007-09-02 08:32:32 · answer #3 · answered by Dame Washalot 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it comes to a head of state, either one is fine, so as long as there is a representative body like congress or parliment to oversee and regulate the monarchs/presidents power. To me it sounds basically the same, of course, the difference is that monarchs have "blue blood" and are not elected, were a president is your run of the mill politician and is elected. To put it simple: if both can do a great job, and both can be tyrants, then what's the diffence?
2007-09-01 12:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by Zoe S. 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Until Tony Blair I would have gone for a republic every time. After Tony Blair and his bunch of pontificating cronies I now realise that we can't be trusted to run a republic bar never mind a country.
So I think that the Queen will have to do for now.
2007-09-04 09:05:50 · answer #5 · answered by Gary L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh; The monarch! The taxi payer's money is put to useless ceremonies like royal weddings etc. while the Republic, the president buys his clothes with his salary!
2007-09-02 21:23:44 · answer #6 · answered by seesunsuf 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
thats a fair enough question these days,the answer has to be
whoever puts the best offer on the table, whoever will be the most protective of the people and the land, mad aliks of this country (britain) blair, brown,thatcher, heath. only use the people for manipulative purposes,
2007-09-02 04:11:25 · answer #7 · answered by trucker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm in the UK and I'll stay with the Monarchy thanks.
"Republic" can be just another word for "Dictatorship". See GWB.
God Save the Queen!
EDIT: seesunsuf - yes and who pays the "President's Salary" - the Taxpayer!! Idiot!
2007-09-02 09:54:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like us to become a republic because I think we should elect our head of state and also every citizen of the country should have the opportunity occupy that office.
2007-09-01 13:11:56 · answer #9 · answered by quierounvaquero 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A monarch has a bit of chutzpa - what's the point of electing a head of state? What does that get you?
2007-09-02 11:25:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋