Thoughts on Monarchism?

[Shadow1980]

A head of state, even if their office is largely ceremonial, shouldn't be a hereditary office. Not only is the idea of power flowing from parent to child absurdly antiquated, but the taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill to support a single wealthy family. Sure, there's tourism revenue and all, but you can still keep all the castles and jewels and guards and the rest of the historical elements and visual trappings without having an actual royal family. The ceremonial functions of head of state should be exercised by an elected officer.

Of course, on the flip side I think it's obvious at this point that republican governments with an executive president ought to consider demoting that office to a ceremonial one, thereby moving to a parliamentary system. We've had more than a few recent examples of executive presidents exercising (or at least attempting to) dictatorial powers, because that's what always inevitably happens in republics with a full presidential system. Not that a parliamentary system is a surefire bet against authoritarianism, but the overwhelming majority of the world's stable, functional democracies are those with parliamentary systems, while the number of full presidential republics that haven't dealt with authoritarian heads of state at some point numbers precisely zero.

Power in government should be diffuse, and never concentrated into a single officer. History shows time and time and time again that having a head of state that exercises any substantial amount of power is just asking for trouble, because sooner or later there's going to be someone in that office that doesn't give a damn about freedom, rule of law, or checks and balances and will seek to expand his power so that he can do whatever he pleases with impunity.