2007-12-17 03:04:40 · 20 answers · asked by The Wail of a Banshee 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In a Constitutional monarchy(such as the ones in Europe) the monarch does not ¨rule¨. The monarch has a representative rôle as the head of state of ALL the country's citizens. Since the monarch is born to the position by tradition and consensus, the figure of the monarch is never partisan or divisive as an elected head of state would be.
It is the elected government which ¨rules´and the elected government has a president or PM as the case may be.
I, for one, think it is a better solution than ours where our president is not only the executive power but has to be the representative head of state as well. Half the country never felt represented by Clinton and now half the country literally hates GW Bush.
2007-12-17 03:33:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a monarch really screws up or goes crazy, the only way to get them out of power is a blood-soaked rebellion, wheras if a president messes up royaly, they can be voted out of office, so I'd go with president.
Of course, there are presidents who are really monarchs... if they rig elections and the like.
Another problem with monarchs is they believe they don't have to answer to anyone and are above morality and the law. Any human with a head that big is bound to cause more problems than they fix, because they think their whim is justification enough to do anything.
2007-12-17 03:13:05 · answer #2 · answered by Zyndro 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Presidents can be corrupt.
Could you imagine President Blair or Brown.
The British Monarchy has a long tradition for care and trust to the British People.
There's no debate on this, the only people who want a republic are those who seek this power for themselves.
2007-12-18 19:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by clovernut 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would prefer the Queen over a President.The Queen has only limited power.A president has to much power.The important thing is to have a constitution protecting your right`s and freedom`s. Without one, a queen or president could become a brutal tyrant.
2007-12-17 03:36:56 · answer #4 · answered by Zombie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I'm not a Monarchist but I do like Britain the way it is - with a Prime Minister and a Parliament. Let's face it, the Queen doesn't really have much power anyway.
2007-12-18 13:00:00 · answer #5 · answered by Megan C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President, you can't impeach a monarch like we did Clinton.
2007-12-17 03:13:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither !!!
The Prime Minister would remain as is.
The Speaker could act as a President as he has the approval of all the parties.
And the Royal Prerogative would be done away with - never to return - ...............
.............Then the power would be where it belongs - IN THE BALLOT BOX
2007-12-17 03:46:03 · answer #7 · answered by John W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presidents don't rule. They serve. So, I'll take a President.
2007-12-17 03:07:45 · answer #8 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
not really much difference these days. id have the monarch as long as the person is honourable and caring of the people and the land
our queen would be great shes better than any politician we have now
2007-12-17 03:07:27 · answer #9 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you can rely on the Queen to be loyal to the country. and you wont catch her fiddling expences stealing from public funds. lying through her teeth or selling her country down the river for her own selfish gain.
2007-12-17 05:18:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋