Monarchy. Is it bad?

[DanneSandin]

haxxiy said:
In theory a monarchy could work better than a democracy since the monarch would be inclined to tend for the long-term well being of a nation, opposed to a president who needs to be concerned about elections and public approval etc.

Yes Nikolai II and Louis XVI were possibly the worst monarchy had to offer, but using their rules as an example of why monarchy doesn't work isn't different from pointing out their popular successors, Lenin and Robespierre, wheren't exactly great rulers. It would be more accurate to say that power in the hand of a single person can turn out badly.

I don't see why a constitutional monarchy where, say, the monarch is both the head of state and government, would inherently turn out worse than a US-like republic, or any other state where people still do have a political voice of sorts.

I couldn't agree more! In the olden days here in Sweden the king actually got elected (1100-1300's).

And yes, monarchs aren't always great - but neither is elected leaders. I don't think anyone over here in Europe thought that George W Bush did a good job; I've seen him on several lists of the worst president in Amercian history... What I'm tryig to say is: elected democratic leaders aren't much better than kings and queens. What's going for them (most of the time anyways) is that they're elected by merit - not birth rights. What's going for the monarch is that he/she have been educated all his/her life to rule...