4 ms·

> The advantage of democracy, in theory, is that there is less violence to choose who is the next ruler... That said our current president was stabbed during el

> The advantage of democracy, in theory, is that there is less violence to choose who is the next ruler... That said our current president was stabbed during elections, a former president was in prison for a while, and politicians here have a knack of having very weird deaths in inopportune moments... I think you wanna say “the advantage of a republic” because a monarchy doesn’t mean lack of democracy. Many europeans countries are a monarchy and a democracy. Monarchy and Republic are one thing. Democracy and Dictatorship is another thing. Btw, great explanation about Dom Pedro II, many scholars call him “the magnanimous” and one of the best imperator of the modern times.

dathinab 4y ago
They are not really monarchies, they are democracies with a small amount of monarchic elements. Monarchy in my understanding implies the rule of the monarch. The Monarchs in most EU countries do not rule, through some have some restricted political influence. I think the UK might be an exception, where as far as I remember the royalty still theoretically holds pretty much all the power just politely decide to pretend they don't know they still rule. But that might be a misconception of mine.
- diegoholiveira 4y ago
  > They are not really monarchies, they are democracies with a small amount of monarchic elements. The king is the head of state, so how this is not a monarchy? > Monarchy in my understanding implies the rule of the monarch. There are two types of monarchies: - constitucional, like belgium, netherlands, norway and japan - absolute: saudi arabia and the vatican city.
- solveit 4y ago
  > I think the UK might be an exception, where as far as I remember the royalty still theoretically holds pretty much all the power just politely decide to pretend they don't know they still rule. I would say that it is the rest of the country politely pretending that the Queen actually holds the enormous power she is legally entitled to. It is the law that is a polite fiction.
  - aryehof 4y ago
    In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. As such, the British Monarchy can be abolished by an Act of Parliament. It is the popular will of the people that prevents that happening. That the British people should choose to maintain the monarchy, or that Canada and Australia should choose to have the Queen as their Head of State, confuses outsiders (particularly Americans) no end.
tremon 4y ago
No, they meant democracy. You are conflating the terms "ruler" and "head of state" if you think their comment is about monarchy vs republic. It's not as if no president has ever been assassinated either: people kill for power, not so much for ceremonial titles. Going a bit on a tangent here, but it is for that reason that I personally prefer the European monarchies over the directly-elected presidencies of e.g. France and the USA: it's very hard to have a meaningful pluriform democratic society when national elections break down into a single-winner-takes-all outcome. I much prefer the democratic structures of e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, where the election outcomes (and, importantly, the media narrative surrounding the elections) are focused on the composition of the legislature, and the subsequent ruler is determined by negotiations between the winning political parties. Of course, Germany is a good example of how to run a republic and still have a pluriform democracy, and the UK is a good example of how even a constitutional democracy can devolve into winner-takes-all outcomes (namely, by allowing a few large parties to monopolize the entire political landscape). But in general, I'd say that the countries that do not directly elect their head of state are much healthier democracies than the ones that do. (yes, I'm aware that most countries that elect their head of state also have separate elections for their legislative bodies. But going by the media coverage of US presidential elections and the recent re-election of Macron in France, that seems an afterthought compared to the democratic processes in more representational democracies).

dathinab 4y ago

They are not really monarchies, they are democracies with a small amount of monarchic elements. Monarchy in my understanding implies the rule of the monarch. The Monarchs in most EU countries do not rule, through some have some restricted political influence. I think the UK might be an exception, where as far as I remember the royalty still theoretically holds pretty much all the power just politely decide to pretend they don't know they still rule. But that might be a misconception of mine.

diegoholiveira 4y ago
> They are not really monarchies, they are democracies with a small amount of monarchic elements. The king is the head of state, so how this is not a monarchy? > Monarchy in my understanding implies the rule of the monarch. There are two types of monarchies: - constitucional, like belgium, netherlands, norway and japan - absolute: saudi arabia and the vatican city.
solveit 4y ago
> I think the UK might be an exception, where as far as I remember the royalty still theoretically holds pretty much all the power just politely decide to pretend they don't know they still rule. I would say that it is the rest of the country politely pretending that the Queen actually holds the enormous power she is legally entitled to. It is the law that is a polite fiction.
- aryehof 4y ago
  In the UK, Parliament is sovereign. As such, the British Monarchy can be abolished by an Act of Parliament. It is the popular will of the people that prevents that happening. That the British people should choose to maintain the monarchy, or that Canada and Australia should choose to have the Queen as their Head of State, confuses outsiders (particularly Americans) no end.

tremon 4y ago

No, they meant democracy. You are conflating the terms "ruler" and "head of state" if you think their comment is about monarchy vs republic. It's not as if no president has ever been assassinated either: people kill for power, not so much for ceremonial titles. Going a bit on a tangent here, but it is for that reason that I personally prefer the European monarchies over the directly-elected presidencies of e.g. France and the USA: it's very hard to have a meaningful pluriform democratic society when national elections break down into a single-winner-takes-all outcome. I much prefer the democratic structures of e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, where the election outcomes (and, importantly, the media narrative surrounding the elections) are focused on the composition of the legislature, and the subsequent ruler is determined by negotiations between the winning political parties. Of course, Germany is a good example of how to run a republic and still have a pluriform democracy, and the UK is a good example of how even a constitutional democracy can devolve into winner-takes-all outcomes (namely, by allowing a few large parties to monopolize the entire political landscape). But in general, I'd say that the countries that do not directly elect their head of state are much healthier democracies than the ones that do. (yes, I'm aware that most countries that elect their head of state also have separate elections for their legislative bodies. But going by the media coverage of US presidential elections and the recent re-election of Macron in France, that seems an afterthought compared to the democratic processes in more representational democracies).