Republic or Monarchy?

[Faísca]

Please vote. And discuss as you see fit.

[Arawn]

Republic!

[Awar]

I dunno... republics easily become corrupt and ineffective.
Monarchies easily become a toy in the hands of inept rulers.

[Demoritus]

I voted for republic but I'm not so sure

[Gil]

Same as Awar though in the end I think I prefer Constitutional Monarchy.

[Perun]

monarchy.

[Biggles]

Republic....like Awar said can become very corrupt and ineffective...

But Monarchy....well, the history of them isnt inspiring...

Britain is a good example of both together, but really Im unsure...

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Mr Curzon Biggles

But Monarchy....well, the history of them isnt inspiring...

Like what? Monarchies were among the most stable governments around in European history. And especially during the Middle Ages the King's power was significantly checked by the aristocracy and the church. And certainly the serfs enjoyed decent living.....most of our perceptions of Lord-serf relations has largely been tained by Marxist stereotypes. Susan Renyolds even noted how fluid the class structure was during the feudal ages.

Anyways.....I support the concept of what is commonly called a "Social Monarchy". That is a monarchial system that runs on a populist-type program and seeks to become close to the common people. This is usually done in accordance with the social doctrines of the Church(both Catholic and Orthodox, since many Czarists had this concept like Sergei Zubatov who formed pro-Czarist labour unions).

Although Im not a strict monarchist(that is I can give support to other forms of government besides monarchy per se), but I still believe many aspects of monarchial government needs to be incorporated into any government system.

As I explained at Skadi in a thread on this topic:

http://forum.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=68518&postcount=1

I'm not a Monarchist per se, but I have always admired the level that tradition, ceremonies, ritualism, and sense of nobility were upheld under the Monarchies. I adhere to the notion of a "Popular Monarchy", which was a notion upheld by many emigre White Russians. That is, the Czar and the nobility exist, but its more of a populist form of monarchy.

I noticed often how the Fascists and National Socialists often adopted many aspects of monarchism in their forms of government. I find many similarities between how high the German people felt about Hitler to the way they felt about the Kaiser.

The way Hitler's name and title of Fuhrer was always invoked to add authority is not entirely different to how it was done for a King in a Monarchy. The slogan "For Fuhrer and Fatherland" is really a NS adoptation of the Monarchist slogan "For King and Country". The level of ritualism and ceremonies under both regimes is very much in vogue with the spirit of the Monarchies. And of course the SS was very much the NS version of the Royal/Imperial Guard, as Himmler often compared his men to.

So I believe that even if a monarchy cannot be created per se, like the NS and Fascists we must adopt many aspects of the Monarchy system and apply to our modern forms of government.

[Biggles]

I agree with what you say, but Englands history is a good example of what i mean...power struggles, abuse of power, territorial expeditions which wernt necessarily in the countries interests (Crusades).

Still this is true of any form of leadership I suppose, but you have the history of Monarchies to look back on and through hindsight see bad decisions taken through Monarchs.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Mr Curzon Biggles

I agree with what you say, but Englands history is a good example of what i mean...power struggles, abuse of power, territorial expeditions which wernt necessarily in the countries interests (Crusades).

I'll have to get back to this one......I just saw something about this episode in English history.

Anyways.....the issue of abuses of power in monarchies are often very complex and often the King is a victim not the initator of such abuses. I know the English Civil War, the French Revolution and such were caused because the King lacked enough power not because he had too much power. The Russian revolution was certainly a complex issue as well, and certainly was not caused because Czar Nicholas II had no concern for his people.

[Perun]

For the record, I also like to add that when concerning an aristocracy I believe in what is called a "service aristocracy", meaning men gain aristocratic titles through service to the state as opposed to simply being born in a certain family.

Although some like Hans-Hermann Hoppe argue that an advantage to hereditary government is that people often have a healthy skepticism towards government, wheras in Republics/Democracies(yes I know they're not exactly the same but bare with me) since the interests of the government are perceived as those of the people, well people tend to be less skeptical of it. The illusion is "Oh well if they do something wrong, they'll be voted out of office", while the truth is they usually will not(for proof of this look at the election of Bush, despite how much he completely messed up as president, and I mean REALLY messed up!).

Of course hereditary means are not the only ways of having a monarch come to power. Need we forget in the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor was elected was a select committe(the 'Electors' they were called, quite obvious as you can tell).

Even if one does believe in democratic government, monarchies often provide the perfect framework for such a system to occur.

[Milesian]

Monarchy, providing you can find the right people for the job

[Zrinski]

Definately republic.

[BLÜT und EHRE]

Republics are prime for being corrupt. Even though after struggle of thought I had to choose republic because I am very unfamiliar with monarchism.

[Aeternitas]

Republic. Though a form of monarchy I'd come close to supporting is a constitutional monarchy.

[Phlegethon]

Military dictatorship.

[NatVox]

Aristocratic Senate elected by a Parliament which, in turn, has been previously elected by Territorial Courts.

The President being a primus inter pares selected out of the Senate and by the members of the Senate themselves.

In short, a Foral* Aristocratic Republic.

[*]similar to Federal, but much based on renewed ancient laws, traditions and customs.

[Graeme]

I am for republics. Monarchies are just entrenched hereditary cliques who think they are better than everyone else. The Spartans had an interesting monarchy composed of two kings who were not hereditary. That type of elected short term monarchy seems better.