what are the advantages and disadvantages of having monarchy as a government?
115842
Completely variant on how good/evil the dictator is.
254389
The sole purpose of government is to control populations and gather power with which to further control their populations. In all of history, there has never been a government whose main interest was the benefit of the individual. Therefore, I subscribe to no political theory, because none actually work. I tolerate the government I live under because I, as an individual, have little choice.
28028
Absolute and Constitutional monarchies are radically different forms of government, each with its own positives and negatives. In a Constitutional monarchy, power is shared between the monarch and Parliament. This is a positive because the greed and desire for power of a monarch will be offset by the Parliament. In an absolute monarchy this is quite different. A monarch in this form of government is able to use his position for personal gain to the detriment of his countrymen. This can have a negative affect on the country’s status. Also citizens in countries with a Constitutional monarchy have more rights and freedoms, whereas citizens in countries with absolute monarchies often have restricted personal freedoms like Religious intolerance, which can cause internal instability.\n\nDuring the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries several European countries experimented with new forms of government. Two of these were absolutism and Constitutional monarchies. Absolutism is a government in which a king or queen rules with total power. The initiation of absolutism was made possible because countries were experiencing turmoil under existing governments. Religious wars, the decline of the church, and a growing middle class created a situation that demanded a leader to rule with complete power so as to restore order. Under absolutism the monarchs that ruled a country had total control because they believed they had a “divine right”. They believed that right was given them by God and bestowed upon them the power to control the county totally. They often defended their abuse of power by saying that it was God’s will for them rule. Also in an absolute monarchy the monarch makes all economic decisions. For example, Louis XIV of France abused his control of money by spending it on his Palace of Versailles.\n\nA Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen rules with limits to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament). A Constitutional monarchy was able to form in England because there was a lack of strong leadership.
989343
Yesterday's newspaper reported that it currently costs the British people $70 million dollars a year to maintain the Monarchy.\n\nConsidering the fact that the Monarchy plays no role in running the British Government, and makes no decisions or policy whatsoever, I think it's high time the British people dissolve the Monarchy and spend their money on ANYTHING better.\n\nPerhaps they should spend the money on paving the grass at Wimbledon with asphalt so they can finally have a more meaningful tennis tournament on hard-court that fairly decides the best player.
89710
The most radical departure was the presidency, instead of a monarchy.  The British had the Magna Carta, and actually a pretty good judicial system (which we adopted to a great extent), and they had parliament which was not that different from congress.  But a monarchy that is inherited is vastly different from a presidency which is voted upon every four years.
407198
yes.  they don't need a monarch but they need a form of parliamentary government that will hold the prime minister (executive) more accountable to the legislature and provides for his dismissal.  the american model of an antagonistic presidency has only allowed it to grow into a criminal agency for the national elite and not a representative democracy.
361039
Monarchies were the civic of choice for centuries, because they are effective. That is why we have a President, if you read documents like the Federalist Papers, the framers were afraid a democracy like ours would be ineffective because of how long it would take for us to make law and come to a decesion. And, because of all the different sides having to settle for one solution, they though most laws would be bogged down by ineffectiveness. (And isn't it true? Look at the imigration issue)\n\nOf course I'm not advocated Monarchy. A country's people choose their government, and if most of the people feel oppressed by their government than their will naturually be revolution, especially in this day and age when the only remaining super power loves forming new democracys across the globe.
1028285
In a Parliamentary government the Executive (President or Prime Minister) more directly depends on the legislature for power. There is usually more direct control over government  by the people in this form, but it is also more inherently unstable and offers less checks and balances.
166684
Democracy \nA system of government where the people rule.  \n\nRepresentative Democracy \nA democracy where the people elect representatives to rule for them.  \n\nConstitutional Monarchy \nA monarchy where the monarch is a figurehead. The country is ruled through elected Parliment Members. This monarchy also has a constitution.  \n\nMonarchy \nA system of government in which a king/queen/emperor etc. is the sole and absolute ruler. The right to rule was usually passed down to the eldest son, from the current monarch, when he/she died.  \n\nOligarchy \nA system of government in which a few people rule.  \n\nAristocracy \nA system of government in which a few people rule, usually the richest, and higher class. The right to rule was passed down within the family.  \n\nTyranny \nA system of government where a ruler has total power, not limited by a constitution or\nby other officials; especially one in ancient Greece. This ruler seizes power often by force, and rules single-handedly. In ancient Greece a tyrant often ruled fairly and justly and got important things done quickly. Many were very popular.  \n\nDictatorship \nA system of government in which one person has seized power violently, and is the sole ruler for life. (Or until he/she is overthrown).  \n\nTotalitarianism \nA system of government where every single part of an individual's life is controlled and watched by the government. People who support this kind of government, believe that strict order is the key to a society without chaos. Myanmar is run by a military government, often the case in a totalitarian government.  \n\nCommunism \nCommunism is a way of living in which the government owns and runs all the business. There are many forms of communism, the "ideal" form of society. Karl Marx set down the foundation of modern communism. Unfortunately all peaceful attempts to have a communist society have been abandoned early on. Usually the only way to have a communist region, is usually through revolution. These often have a cruel dictator, and are not "ideal." There are also many factions of communism, who usually fight each other. One example is Socialism.  \n\nAnarchy\nAnarchists believe that government is evil, and that it limits individual freedoms. So anarchy is no form of government at all. Its roots can be traced back to the Goths in Europe.
654894
Nothing really.All it is another way to run another contry. Its a monarchy.Really I don't know what is so special about royalty.Their just normal people like us.
239297
I would disagree with your claim that Monarchies are more stable. \n\nLook at Nepal, it's falling apart... the reason why one might think that Monarchies are more stable is that they are less frequent and therefore thier demise doesn't register in our memory compared to the collapse of Democratic systems.\n\nDid you know that Egypt was a monarchy for instance? and like the previous person who answered, many countries, including China were also monarchies? \n\nI believe that Monarchy System of Government is just like any other system, if the people are happy with it, it will will prosper, it not, then it would eventualy collapse. \n\nBesides, most of those countries you mentioned have no reason to be unstable, they're well-managed and thier people are living in relative ease. Why would people go through the trouble or even want to change the status quo?
779586
It might be than that the government would go back to being merely a servant of the people -- merely a temporary servant; And not the people a servant to them.\n\n Its function might be to obey orders, not originate them.\n\nMaybe.
97932
The monarchy is for show.  It is tradition, nothing more.  Right now it is not really exciting.  There are no dynamic or charismatic people to watch.  People liked Princess Di, but Prince Charles and Camille, they are ugly and boring.  The young princes maybe interesting when they get a little older, we will see.
83528
advantages: 1. common currency. wealth is based on value. desreptions on value of a gram of gold was led to value of property. simple trading with neighbors worked well enough but trade with distant places proved difficult. 2.'strength in numbers', combined states to protect against foreign govts.\ndisadvantages: 1.centralized power to a reletively few who dictate mannerisms of those whom they rule. 2. the federal reserve http://www.philipdru.com/griffin3_stream.html
1007795
democracy-government in which the people directly rule, has maximum tollerance toward religion and cultural identity stresses freedom of speach, stressed importance of innovation and success causses strong economy--draw backs; slow decision making, poor military strength\n\nrepublic-govenment in which elected representatives rule; great tolerance toward religion and cultural identity, stresses freedom of speech, stressed importance of innovation and success causses strong economy--draw backs: mediocre decision making, corruption pressent, weak to mediocre military strength\n\nmonarchy-government in which a hereditary monarchy rules; mediocre to poor tolerance, censored speech, mediocre innovative and sucsess drive makes mediorcre economic strength, good military strength--drawbacks: government does not cause excellent results in any catagory \n\ndespotism-government in which single autocrat rules usualy by being backed by the military and/or a secret police; generaly very low tollerance, heavily censored speach, distribution of wealth to close friends and poor motivation to excel causes economy to suffer, military strong--drawbacks: poor personal freedom causes civil unrest, week economy\n\nconstitutional monarchy-a government where a hereditary monarchy rules only with powers dictated by a constitution; fair to good tolerance, occational censorship of media, good personal freedom causes good economy, fair military--drawbacks:none major\n\noligarchy-govenment in which a council of plutocrats or hereditarily designated members rule; tolerance and free speech depends on benvolence of council, generaly good personal freedoms causes strong economy, weak military--drawbacks: instability of policy\n\ncommunism-govenment in which a premir("representing" the people but not elected by them) directs policy while a politiburo(central party commity) decides issues;no tolerance of religion or cultural identity, heavily censored media, poor personal freedom causes economy to suffer, military strong--drawbacks zero tolerance causes civil unrest, economy weak
760022
Constitutional Monarchy that is also a Parliamentary Democracy and a Federation.\nFrom the CIA World Factbook\nhttps://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html
602980
The Queen is the head of state and the Prime Minister is the head of government. teh reason for both is so that not one person would hold ALL of the power, I think they found this out the hard way years ago. I believe Kings who were tyrants, they held all the power so they did as they chose top do, thats what makes the US President unique, in that he is both head of state and of government. I think we just figured out how to fix the country..LOL