Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Is a republic really better than a monarchy ?

umbertoII
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 6:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Hi I am new to the forum.
So today as my intro thread I"d like to talk about a not-really-well-explored topic: the conflict between monarchy and republic.
So, It"s a common opinion that a republic is generally better than a monarchy, but is it really true ?
<DISCLAIMER>: I DON"T SUPPORT ABSOLUTIST SYSTEMS, I support constitutional monarchism (at the condition that the king retains political power).
Also, please read the thread carefully even though it could be really long.
Please read the whole thread before replying with half-arguments.

This thread is dedicated to the now-dead king of Thailand
RIP Bhumidol Adulyadej 12/5/1927-10/13/2016

I"ll just start by debunking some common myths about the monarchist institutions and the monarchy in general:
"Monarchies are un-democratic !"
Actually, most monarchies today are more democratic than republics.
Also, even in republics like the US the democracy has many flaws: in some cases the US electoral college may pretty much reverse the popular vote.
Also, democracy is not necessarily good: Bloodthirsty dictators have many times been elected through democracy.

"Monarchies are too expensive!"
Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.

"Hereditary monarchy just isn"t fair!"
Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more "fair" than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.

"Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?"
Same question could be asked for Republican leaders. What if someone promises everything,but when elected gives nothing ? Also, monarchs don"t necessarily have to govern themselves. Most of the time, if the monarch is underage, incompetent or can"t govern for whatever reason he either abdicates or someone in the royal family takes the throne instead of him. Sometimes a regency is also instituted.

"Monarchy is an archaic throwback ! Republics are modern !"
Republics are as old as monarchies, ever heard of the greek city-states (first experimentations of direct democracy) or of the roman republic that preceded the empire ?

"What if the monarch is cruel like Nero or Attila ?"
First, the role of some allegedly-cruel monarchs in history has been revised: for Example Nero was a lover of culture and arts, and the myth that he started the fire of Rome (which probably developed accidentally from a house fire, considered that roman houses were wooden and really close to each other) has been debunked as a probably-false information spread by his political enemies, who were scared by his pro-peasantry reforms.
Also, episodes of despotic monarchs today are rare because the king"s powers are often limited by constitutions: absolute monarchies are very rare today.
Also, what about republican monsters like Mao, Pinochet, Hitler, Stalin, Gaddafi and others ?

"Monarchs don"t know how common people live"
Queen Elizabeth II was a truck driver and mechanic during WWII, the queen of Denmark printed many illustrations for books and and there are many photos of the ex-King of Thailand visiting the masses.
Actually, many monarchs have studied in common schools and had normal jobs before becoming kings.

"Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them !"
Sometimes, popular monarchies have been overthrown by a small minority through brute force and the help of the most poor, ignorant and impressionable strata of the population, often promising things that never arrived. Take for example the french revolution: with the pretext of overthrowing an oppressive monarchy, a dictatorial republic that went through years of instability was established.

"Monarchies are set apart ! They don"t represent all the people !"
The purpose of an impartial monarch is that to represent ALL the people aside of their political, cultural and ethnic differences.
Do you think a white conservative president can also represent, for example, liberal blacks like he does with the people who voted for him and share his opinion ?

Now, I"ll go onto the best part: i"ll list (some of) the many cases in which the monarchy demonstrated to be better than the republic that followed.

I"ll start with my own country: Italy.
Before the 1946 our country was much different from what it is now: yes, there was and high number of analpahbetes and there were all the post-bellum problems: destroyed infrastructure, cities in ruins etc.
But the monarchy was actually still very popular: when king Umberto II showed up in public, he always had happy crowds gathering around him, and there was a great audience when he gave speeches.
At the time, Italy was occupied by the allies, which de jure mantained a position of neutrality during the italian monarchy-republic referendum which was called out NOT by the population, but by leftist and socialist elements in the italian parliament.
Well, the allies where NOT impartial: British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden despised Umberto II and Harold Macmillan, British Minister Resident in the Mediterranean, worked for two days to get the old King Victor Emmanuel III to abdicate or retire and achieved, at the last minute, the "final and irrevocable" surrender of royal authority. In that first action the Allies, despite their talk of neutrality, took the first step in tearing down the existing legal Italian government.
And when Victor Emmanuel III abdicated, the presence of communists and leftists in the italian parliament fumed, and the allies even downplayed the danger of Italy becoming a communist state.
These socialist elements in the new parliament wanted the abolition of the monarchy, and while the new king Umberto II wanted a democratic plebiscite to vote on the issue, the leftist-dominated temporary government wanted the deputies to vote on the Issue.
Luckily, the democratic referendum was chosen.
It"s important to state that not only the communists wanted the republic, but the fascists also did: in fact, the crown and fascist party were not good friends, and during world war two the german puppet state of the Italian social republic, led by Benito Mussolini, actively produced anti-monarchist propaganda.
The ITS spanned in the northern half of Italy, and that"s where many fascists and ex-fascists were concentrated, along with communists and socialist veterans from the partisan brigades
The polls gave the monarchy a huge advantage on the republic in the first weeks, and the leftist government, fearing a victory of the monarchy, used the easiest way to allow the republic to win: they used multiple frauds, I"ll list them below.
First, the occupied zones in Trentino and Friuli (provinces of Italy) were not able to vote.
Second, people recei
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:06:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
You are not new to the site.You have joined about ten times, Jifpop has beat you in ten monarchy debates, and each time you leave and run, He'll probably return in a few days, and beat you again, and you will leave for 6 months study up come back and still lose another monarchy debate to Jifpop
umbertoII
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:09:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
had to add this because it doesn't show the whole thread
Second, people received multiple voting certificates and some people didn"t even receive them
Also, thousands of Italians were prisoner in camps in foreign countries and could not vote.
Groups of monarchists were assaulted by revolutionaries during rallies and the security forces that should have maintained public order in the offices where the votes were submitted had an anti-monarchist as commander: in few words, there was an intimidation atmosphere.
Analphabetes were also exploited: it was told them that the icon which represented the monarchy was the one showing the "queen" (keep in mind most of them had never seen the italian monarchist coat of arms or never understood what it represented), but in reality the so-called "queen" was the personification of Italy (which is a woman with a mural crown on her head) and it represented THE REPUBLIC, not THE MONARCHY !
When the results were published, thousands of people protested, but the riots were often suppressed and marked by republican propaganda as dangerous terrorist uprisings.
In his last speeches, Umberto II clearly stated that leftist elements in the government had compromised the results.
Today, the Italian republic is extremely corrupt, much more than how the monarchy was.
The king also Symbolized national unity and pride, but today we are reduced to US satellites and our economy and government are in shambles, dangerous independentist movements have emerged and our national pride is destroyed, all because of that huge fraud in 1946.

Moving on to another famous case: the Russian revolution.
I"ll just clear up the first thing you"d say if someone asks you what was the motivation behind the russian revolution: russia"s life standards and infrastructure.
Yeah, they were not really good, but look at russia today: there"s still plenty of poor areas with crumbling infrastructure, especially in the east, that"s because everyone would find difficulty to control an enormous territory stretching from asia to europe which is home to like 20 different ethnicities.
Also, russia wasn"t really a poor cesspool: the industry was growing rapidly and relations with the west, especially after Russia allied with France and the UK, were improving.
The country had a growing market that also benefitted from trade with the US and with other european countries, and had a growing bourgeoisie.
Russian agricultural production and exports were enormous, and the country was, according to a french statist, set to become europe"s leading economic power in 1950.
The socialists who caused and led the revolution had many supporters among the army and the populace: those supporters were undermining civilian and military morale by spreading false propaganda: "MUH OUR ECONOMY IS CRAP" "DA TZAR IS A TYRANT XDD"

Actually, the tsar had vaste support among the populace: when russia entered WWI, a huge crowd gathered up at the imperial palace at st. Petersburg singing the imperial anthem: there is even footage of the event !
Unfortunately, the communists achieved their goal: propagandising among the populace and army, and by exploiting the "Bloody Sunday" of 1905 (a police charge against a crowd in st. Petersburg, a thing of which the tsar was not even responsible since he was absent when this happened) they undermined civilian and army morale, leading to Russian defeat and to the revolution.
The money and goods that were confiscated from the bourgeoisie and the nobility only filled up the pockets of the leaders of the revolution: Lenin himself bought a luxury car.
The revolution caused a bloody civil war that killed millions of people, and created a state with a planned economy.
Once the soviet union opened its market, the economy, which until then did not have concurrence couldn"t stand the foreign industries and nearly collapsed, and it still kinda of recovering: much different from the scenario that depicted russia as the leading economic power in europe.

Next example: The 1979 islamic revolution.
Now you"re going to say "But omg why do you talk about it we all know it"s a bad thing".
Well, because the islamic revolution is actually worse than it sounds: It was what I"d like to call the biggest scam in human history.
Ayatollah Khomeini, the man behind the Islamic revolution, was the stain who caused and promoted this crime against the iranian culture.
Like many of the opposers to the Shah, he was from the religious elite, which was scared of the filo-western policy of the shah.
The pretext used by khomeini to cause mass uprisings and destabilize the country, all of this ultimately culminating in the shah"s abdication, was literally this: in his malfunctioned brain he tought that the shah was a puppet of the US and his westernization policies were a danger to the Iranian culture.
Actually, when khomeini re-entered the country after the revolution and became head of state, he pretty much turned the secular iranian culture in a contorted mixture of radical islam and arabic ultra-orthodox culture.
Also, differently that how khomeini propagandised, the Shah didn"t suck up to the united states: it was the opposite.
The US maintained strong diplomatic and trading relations with Iran because if they cooled relations with Iran, the shah would have curtailed oil exports to the USA, so the shah pretty much forced the US to collaborate with Iran (which helped westernize the country) or he would have pretty much caused an oil crisis.
Also, the Islamic revolution set Iran back by many years: from a civilized and westernized laic nation, to a fundamentalist islamic theocracy.

The following case is not very known among the public, but I feel like I should put it because it"s kind of connected with what happened in the middle east during this century.
Afghanistan used to be a monarchy too.
The reign of the last monarch, Mohammed Zahir Shah, was probably one of the most successful periods in Afghani history: it was a reign somewhat similar to that of the Shah in afghanistan"s close territorial and cultural neighbour: Iran.
Mohammed Zahir hired many european advisors and Afghanistan reached a certain institutional and social stability under his reign and his popularity is still high despite his death: he was given the title "father of the nation" when he came back to Afghanistan after exile.
When a coup deposed him in 1973, a new republic was formed.
It had a weak government and institutions, and after a soviet-backed revolution the Democratic people"s republic of afghanistan was established.
This new state was a satellite of the Soviet union and was immediately occupied by soviet forces.
The resistance groups that formed and ultimately ousted the soviets contained islamic fundamentalist elements, that ultimately organized into various fundamentalist groups.
One of these, the Taliban, took control of most of the country after another weak republic had formed.
The Taliban activity inspired many other extremist groups all over the world, starting a chain of events eventually caused all the tensions in the middle east and the global war on islamic terrorism.
So, we could say that the chain of events that turned the middle east into this mess was basically triggered by the abolition of the relatively stable afghan monarchy.
There are many other cases in which the monarchy was an essentially a good force for various nations, but I think the thread is long enough and does not need other informations for now.

Thank you for reading, please keep it a civilised debate.
umbertoII
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:10:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:06:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
You are not new to the site.You have joined about ten times, Jifpop has beat you in ten monarchy debates, and each time you leave and run, He'll probably return in a few days, and beat you again, and you will leave for 6 months study up come back and still lose another monarchy debate to Jifpop

I don't know what you are talking about lol.
I am another person kek
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:06:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
You are not new to the site.You have joined about ten times, Jifpop has beat you in ten monarchy debates, and each time you leave and run, He'll probably return in a few days, and beat you again, and you will leave for 6 months study up come back and still lose another monarchy debate to Jifpop

Wait: this is that RoyalistTeaParty person?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:14:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:13:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:06:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
You are not new to the site.You have joined about ten times, Jifpop has beat you in ten monarchy debates, and each time you leave and run, He'll probably return in a few days, and beat you again, and you will leave for 6 months study up come back and still lose another monarchy debate to Jifpop

Wait: this is that RoyalistTeaParty person?

yep
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:15:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:14:47 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:13:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:06:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
You are not new to the site.You have joined about ten times, Jifpop has beat you in ten monarchy debates, and each time you leave and run, He'll probably return in a few days, and beat you again, and you will leave for 6 months study up come back and still lose another monarchy debate to Jifpop

Wait: this is that RoyalistTeaParty person?

yep

Emilly Molloy?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:16:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:15:25 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:14:47 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:13:15 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:06:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
You are not new to the site.You have joined about ten times, Jifpop has beat you in ten monarchy debates, and each time you leave and run, He'll probably return in a few days, and beat you again, and you will leave for 6 months study up come back and still lose another monarchy debate to Jifpop

Wait: this is that RoyalistTeaParty person?

yep

Emilly Molloy?

yep also the same person
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:24:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

Jifpop is currently banned from edeb8. Also, your language is a bit too harsh in my opinion.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
umbertoII
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:42:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

I am NOT the person you think I am, i do not even know what you're talking about
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:42:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:42:03 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

I am NOT the person you think I am, i do not even know what you're talking about

Jifpop will destroy you in a debate. again
umbertoII
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:42:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:03 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

I am NOT the person you think I am, i do not even know what you're talking about

Jifpop will destroy you in a debate. again
I am seriously not the person you're talking about,I swear, I don't even know the person you're talking about.
What makes you think I am another person, only my political opinion ?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 8:01:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:49:32 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:03 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

I am NOT the person you think I am, i do not even know what you're talking about

Jifpop will destroy you in a debate. again
I am seriously not the person you're talking about,I swear, I don't even know the person you're talking about.
What makes you think I am another person, only my political opinion ?
No you also drone on and say boring stuff about it. Unless every monarchist is a psuedo intellectual bore, it is likely you are the same person
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 8:02:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:24:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

Jifpop is currently banned from edeb8. Also, your language is a bit too harsh in my opinion.

One day when you have a penis, you may be less bothered by my language
umbertoII
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 8:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 8:01:52 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:49:32 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:03 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

I am NOT the person you think I am, i do not even know what you're talking about

Jifpop will destroy you in a debate. again
I am seriously not the person you're talking about,I swear, I don't even know the person you're talking about.
What makes you think I am another person, only my political opinion ?
No you also drone on and say boring stuff about it. Unless every monarchist is a psuedo intellectual bore, it is likely you are the same person
I sadly have to admit that monarchists all look like the same to other people.
I am not that person anyway, also mind explaining who is this person you're talking about ?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 11:22:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 8:17:02 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 8:01:52 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:49:32 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:42:03 PM, umbertoII wrote:
At 10/16/2016 7:16:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
Can somebody go on edeb8 and tell jifpop to come put his b1tch in her place

I am NOT the person you think I am, i do not even know what you're talking about

Jifpop will destroy you in a debate. again
I am seriously not the person you're talking about,I swear, I don't even know the person you're talking about.
What makes you think I am another person, only my political opinion ?
No you also drone on and say boring stuff about it. Unless every monarchist is a psuedo intellectual bore, it is likely you are the same person
I sadly have to admit that monarchists all look like the same to other people.
I am not that person anyway, also mind explaining who is this person you're talking about ?

No, what's his name already mentioned them in this thread, so their user names are easy enough to search for, and you can see their debates with jifpop, so you know how your arguments are wrong
JohnF.Kennedy
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 3:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Expected a discussion and I got people thinking some new guy is an alt

amazing
I actually do not care at all about any refugees, I have said time and time again that Europes external borders should be maintained by autonomous 30mm grenade launchers firing air burst rounds.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 5:31:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I happen to agree with you. Some of the countries with the highest quality of life a those with constitutional monarchies.

In fact, the institution of the constitutional monarchy is arguably the most important political institution in the modern era, and was a huge part as to why Britain became a super power. Whilst other European nations retained absolute monarchies up until the end of the WW1, Britain established the constitutional monarchy in the 17th century.

I like you points about the monarchy. I live in a country with a monarchy, and I support the system because I understand how it works and functions.