Wouldn't communism be just as valid a goverment form as fascism? That's the opposit of company-sponsored-democracy... Corporationism!?

Very true - and out of all of those about 50% are doing quite well! how many percentage of the worlds democracies are doing as fine? Would be nice to have some statistics :)

Anyways, the question were: Monarchy - is it bad? It didn't ask what form of monarchy are good/bad :P

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.

Honestly, I would prefer a benevolent monarch (or dictator, or whatever you want to call them) to what we have right now. The way we have it set up, things take forever to get done.

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...

You are attributing current day Monarchies with the powers Monarchies had hundreds of years ago. Many many European countries have them, but Monarchies today do not have any real power in government - just ceremonial power. Essentially the Monarchies are the biggest land owners in their respective countries. The Queen of England is the largest land owner in the world, but in actuality, she has no real say in what happens with that land, if a government wants to take that land and drill for natural resources there, they will vote on it and do it.

If you mean Monarch's with actual powers, I don't agree. Dynastic rule is generally not stable enough, this has been known for over 2500 years; since the days of Solon, and we are repeatedly reminded of it throughout history. Sure some times we can have great Kings, but then their successors might be absolutely terrible. The Romans in multiple occasions saw the faults of dynastic rule, and it was ultimately the Imperial dynasties that brought the Empire down on multiple occasions.

Well, to be honest the topic wasn't if an Absolute monarchy is good/bad - just monarchy, which include consitutional ;P

Simply put if the Monarch are wise and just its good.

If they are evil and cruel Monarchy is bad.

Canada is a Constitutional Democratic Monarchy. The monarchy holds veto over Canadian law and this protects Canada from ever becoming corrupted. The Queen has not used her veto power without approval of parliament or the people as long as I have been alive in fact I can't think of a time in Canada's democratic history in which the monarchy has imposed its will on Canada.

Our democratic process is perfect and has tons of fail safes. But the monarchy is the absolute final line of defence protecting our country from ever falling from democracy.

Let me explain the Queen could not dissolve parliament without Government support easily. If the political parties were opposed the Queen would have a very hard time dissolving parliament. In the same way the queen would have a very difficult time forcing the country to do anything without the support of the political parties. The only way the queen could intervene and over throw Canada's political system would be if she had the support of the people.

Canada is far better off under the monarchy. We have benefitted massively from being under the crown. In fact it was the British Monarchy that protected us from the Americans. When the Americans invaded Canada it was the British that supported our troops in burning down the White House. It was the British that helped us establish the democratic Government we have today. The British that empowered us.

America fighting the British benefitted America to a degree. But British assistance and monarchratic rule made Canada what it is today.

Then look at India and Pakistan. Yes the British Empire was brutal but guess what when Britain left the region fell apart. Africa is now in ruin everywhere Britain left is now in ruin except America, South Africa is doing alright to my knowledge but the majority of the countries that left the monarchy are now screwed.

I don't accept that any person has a divine right over me.