Homework! Help !

[GalataPSB]

My brother's english homework subject :

"Which one is better? Monarchy or Republic..." What are the advantages/ disadvantages of Monarchy/Republic system NOWADAYS?

I don't know many things about Monarchy system. Thanx...

[Lucy]

Have you looked online? I'm sure if you google it you'd find the info you need..
wikipedia would have a page on each..

[One of the crowd]

I have searched high and low but I cannot find an album called "Monarchy" by New Order so the answer is "Republic"

[One of the crowd]

Seriously, done a search on Google (Monarchy Or Republic)

Here's a few links:

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic ... topicID=42

http://www.student.city.ac.uk/~rc391/ju ... ud_cs.html

[GalataPSB]

Thank you so much..

[York Minster]

The system of the United States is always the best, always.

[Patrick Bateman]

The system of the United States is always the best, always.

Plutocracy then.

[Danny C]

It's a poorly worded question. Do they mean absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy?

[gregf]

A monarchy is where the head of state is predetermined by hereditary means
such as a royal family. When the King or Queen dies, the eldest son succeeds
to the throne and becomes king. When there is no son, the eldest daughter
becomes queen.

A republic is any other system where the next head of state is chosen by any
other means from merit to murder.

For example, Great Britain is a monarchy and the United States is a republic.

Historically, before electronic communication and human rights, monarchies offered
the advantage that a King could make rapid decisions in war to defend a country.
The disadvantages of a monarchy is that when a sickly, insane, or otherwise
incompetent ruler took the throne, the country was stuck with that ruler for a lifetime.

The main advantage of a republic, especially in the modern world is that it is easy
to change the head of state for a more competent one.

Also in a monarchy, there is more likely to be a class system with its own problems.

A republic is like a land where everyone is king and that instils freedoms and responsibilities
to each citizen. More effort must go into making a republic work so each citizen
must participate in the democratic institutions of a republic such as voting,
participating in juries, learning and respecting the constitutional rights. A citizen
in a healthy republic is more likely to have guaranteed freedoms than a monarchy,
even a healthy one.

In a monarchy "respect" for the head of state is often used to maintain a class
system and can lead to an unhealthy attitude to social mobility. For example
Australia still has the queen of Great Britain as its head of state yet in this country
the Union Jack and Queen is still used by the racist conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronulla_riots

Any answering of this question must cover two other points.

In any country with a healthy government, there is division of power between the
head of state and the head of government. For example in Great Britain, the head
of government is the prime Minister and the head of state is the Queen. This division
of power is just as important as having a republic. Great Britain has a "constitutional
monarchy" where the power is clearly divided and hence has many of the advantages
of a republic.

The un-addressed issue for many countries is this division of power. Ideally the model
should be based on a court of law where a judge (head of state) moderates the
two barristers until one is a winner (head of government). A simpler example is a
football game where the referee symbolises the head of state with limited powers,
while the two team compete to be victor (head of government). Any game of football
where the referee is chosen from one side and/or gives favour to one side is doomed
to failure. Thus a head of state should be clearly not partisan to either side of politics,
but able to intervene when competition breaks down.

It can be argued that it is best that the head of state in a republic is NOT elected.
An elected president is inevitably partisan and powerful. A head of state chosen in
a simpler method, is less powerful and will remain within those powers.

And most power should go to the head of government and the ministers in the government
must be able to be questioned on the floor of parliament where they can be accountable
for their actions. So the danger of a republic is having a strong head of state who
appoints their own ministers, with decisions being made behind closed doors. Although
Great Britain is a monarchy, the PM or any other minister can be questioned on the
floor of parliament and this principle is one of the most important in a democracy.

There have several examples of this recently. In Pakistan, parliament has recently
gained the upper hand over a president who governed as head of government. In
Zimbabwe this process of parliament reigning in a too powerful president is under way.

In Russian it would be to everyone's advantage if Putin did take power as prime minister.
it would please the people and clarify the totally ambiguous position of Dmitry Medvedev.
(That is not an endorsement of Putin).

So in fact few countries have the perfect system. It is the obligation of all of us to work
to perfect the system. And that is a very republican ideal.