Is Democracy ALWAYS better than Monarchy ?

[Johan]

What's better : a good king or a bad president ?

Sometimes, democracy and elections lead to political disaters : Recently Hugo Chavez has been re-elected by the poepel of Venezuela s President of the country, these elections were totally fair, peaceful and no big fraud were reported.
Chavez is a socialist, totally anti-american. He brought support to Ghaddafi, China, Iran, he and his administration are corrupted, he use to put his friends and families in the government, etc..
But still, he's president of Venezuela for almost 15 years, he won 4 presidental elections.

Sometimes, kings can be wise, good : In 1999, Mohammed VI succeeded to his father Hassan II as King of Morocco.
Unlike his father who was a dictator, Mohammed VI values democracy : He sponsored a revisal of the Constitution granting more Human Right, Freedeom, pluralism for the people, less power for the king and more to the parliament
Since 9/11 Morocco's an ally of the US in the war against terrorism.


So, what's better : A democratically elected asshole or a good guy who gained the right to rule his country just because he's the son of his father ?

 

[itcouldbeme]

No...

 

[Sam Fisher]

What I find more interesting is, at times your spelling and sentence structure is second to none when posting. But at other times, there are many misspelled words, phrases that don't make sense, and sentences that also are terribly written. Just sayin'....

And to answer your question.. Yes!

 

[Bearded_Menace]

My answer to the question is: It Depends. I am in favor of democracy, but I am not so naive as to believe that it is a perfect system that works everywhere for everyone under any circumstance. After all we are dealing with mankind and his idiosyncrasies.

 

[Rey C.]

This is a fantastic question! Johan, I would rep you but I can't yet. So I owe you.

As far as systems go, I am strongly in favor of democratic republics. And I am strongly opposed to monarchies. But with that said, in the short term (only), I believe a country would be better off with a good king over a bad president.

But one problem is, in a democracy (in the U.S., at least) you can't keep a good President for more than 8 years. And the problem with kings is, you can't get rid of a bad one, unless he dies or someone manages to assassinate him. And though not a king, as an absolute ruler, initially, the people of Rome thought that Caligula was going to be a great leader. Only after he got sick and went mad did they realize that he was even worse than his predecessor, Tiberius. Until someone proves himself, it's hard to judge beforehand whether he's going to be good or bad. Plus, no one is all good or all bad. There have been at least brief periods when even the worst rulers have done positive things. Remember the old saying about Il Duce, Mussolini? "Say what you like about Mussolini, but he kept the trains running on time."

Great question! :thumbsup:

 

[bobjustbob]

There are many different kinds of Monarchies and some of work quite well. If a King wants to rule absolutely he better have enough money to spend on his army or making the people happy. That's why most Monarchies have constitutional rules in place and limit the throne's powers.

 

[mikexmoran]

I'd say it is situational. A Democracy is preferred by me. However, there are times where it is not viable or practical. Take Europe after the fall of Rome. Supporting and administering a Democracy would have been difficult at best.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Are we thinking short term or long term? That's the question.

The efficiency allowed by a dictatorship enables a good leader to accomplish a lot that checks and measures would deny a democratically elected incumbant, however there is the risk that a dictatorship is always just around the corner.

Healthy democracy has less chance of producing a brutal dictator, but can hold a good leader back and has other pitfalls beside.

 

[itcouldbeme]

Man has proven that over a period of time we are not able to collectively govern ourselves.

We have a tendency to mediate to the point of self-destruction.

Great societies exist at the beginning, but fail towards the end...

Collective thinking is what causes this...

 

[larss]

In the UK, we have both - as a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (as do Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and others...)
The country is governed by an elected parliament but has a hereditary head of state. The head of state in this case is someone who has been trained their entire life to do that job.

And Johan, your poll is a little sexist - We currently have a queen, as does Denmark.

- - - Updated - - -

In the UK, we have both - as a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (as do Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and others...)
The country is governed by an elected parliament but has a hereditary head of state. The head of state in this case is someone who has been trained their entire life to do that job.

And Johan, your poll is a little sexist - We currently have a queen, as does Denmark.

 

[vodkazvictim]

In the UK, we have both - as a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (as do Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and others...)
The country is governed by an elected parliament but has a hereditary head of state. The head of state in this case is someone who has been trained their entire life to do that job.

And Johan, your poll is a little sexist - We currently have a queen, as does Denmark.

- - - Updated - - -

In the UK, we have both - as a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (as do Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and others...)
The country is governed by an elected parliament but has a hereditary head of state. The head of state in this case is someone who has been trained their entire life to do that job.

And Johan, your poll is a little sexist - We currently have a queen, as does Denmark.

Hey, cat, how do you think our political setup is doing? Is the country thriving? :rofl:
AaBau KommyHu3M!!!!

 

[larss]

Hey, cat, how do you think our political setup is doing? Is the country thriving? :rofl:
AaBau KommyHu3M!!!!

We're better off than most. Not many thriving countries in the world these days.

 

[Red XXX]

Yes as Larss has said ... in the UK we swing both ways!

 

[FreeOnes_Anders]

Wouldnt "Is Democracy ALWAYS better than dictatorship?" have been a more suitable threadname?

 

[Johan]

Wouldnt "Is Democracy ALWAYS better than dictatorship?" have been a more suitable threadname?

Non, 'cause some dictators have been democraticaly elected (Hitler, Chavez, etc...)
My point was to ask people if democraticaly elected leaders are alway better than leaders who came to power through heredity, even if sometimes kings happen to be wise and presidents become dictators.

 

[FreeOnes_Anders]

Non, 'cause some dictators have been democraticaly elected (Hitler, Chavez, etc...)
My point was to ask people if democraticaly elected leaders are alway better than leaders who came to power through heredity, even if sometimes kings happen to be wise and presidents become dictators.

Ok, take Hitler, he was elected, but turned it in to a dictatorship by getting rid of all the rights of the other parties.
Which means its no longer a democracy.
Making your point moot.

And if you take for example the UK, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and a whole bunch of other countries, they have a royal family AND democracy.

Which makes your question irrelevant since its not applicable to a real world scenario.

And what about sultanates?

Brunei for example is ruled by a sultan and not a king or a queen.