Debate Tournament:Saucerat v LeenBakkema:Monarchy, page 1

Thanks man, I don�t feel animosity towards you neither. Goodluck to you too and like the forum itself already says �it is no Project Mayhem�. I however have to disagree with you about the idea to forbid monarchies.

You give some good reasons why a monarch shouldn�t be head of state in the 21st century, let�s make a summary:
* 1. History has proven that leaders given totalitarian powers abuse their inherited governance and use it in oppression of their own people.
* 2. History has also shown that people governed under a monarch have generally rejected their supreme ruler and have rebelled or overthrown their leader.
* 3. The opinion of the people doesn�t count since they don�t get a say if they like their non-elected leader.
* 4. The monarch may have little or none political experience, weakening the country�s political status and reputation (which is what the monarch is supposed to represent).
* 5. The argument that a monarch could make a country in a disastrous state.

First of all it is very important to know what the powers and tasks are of a generally accepted monarch:

* He or she accredits his or her country�s ambassadors.
* He or she receives Letters of Credence, sent by other heads of state accrediting his/her ambassador to the state.
* He or she signs international treaties on behalf of the state, or has them signed in his/her name by ministers.
* He or she appoints all the key officials in the state.
* He or she appoints all the key officials in the state.
* He or she may dismiss office-holders.
* In the vast majority of states, whether republics or monarchies, executive authority (i.e. the source of governmental power) is vested in the head of state.
* A head of state is often empowered to summon and dissolve parliaments.
* Most states require that all Bills passed by parliament are signed into law by the Head of State
* Veto a Bill.
* Reserve the Bill to be signed later.
* Send the Bill to the courts to test its constitutionality.
* Put the Bill to the people in a referendum.

In Presidential systems or in absolute monarchies, a head of state is normally not merely head of state but the active chief executive officer of the government. The principal example of this is the United States.

Symbolic role
* one of the most important roles of the modern head of state is being a symbolic national symbol of the nation.

Are we going to look at the translation of the dictionary
Monarchy (plural: -chies)
1. A form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead
2. A country reigned over by a king, prince, or other monarch

After this information let�s take a look again at the arguments:
* 2. This argument becomes invalid because the monarch as described above and the tasks which he has isn�t rejected generally, just the so-called monarchies which are drained with despotism, of which we all know which countries that are. These are however different kinds of monarchs then described above because there is a big difference between the powers of monarchs as you are describe them, and the monarchs which should stay head of state, and are generally accepted. As you have read a monarch is not always merely the head of state, but sometimes also the active chief executive officer of the government, but only in Presidential systems or in absolute monarchies .

Are we going to look at the other arguments, then we have to say that also the arguments number 2. and 5. apply to the Presidential or absolute monarchies, not the monarchy which everybody wants to have. These kind of monarchies however don�t resemble the monarchies in general ,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or do you have the feeling that the monarch of Germany during the World War 2 is applicable to all the monarchs, or are these just exceptions, exceptions in which the country itself didn�t follow the normal line of the tasks and powers which a monarch should have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These kind of monarchies shouldn�t exists in the 21st century, I agree with you on that one, but they aren�t the monarchies which are generally applied , and the other monarchies do function very well because of the limited powers which the monarch has, and also because it should represent the country itself, symbolically, in a positive manner.

The real question at hand is which kind of monarchies (and the monarch which goes with the kind of monarchy) should be allowed, not if the monarchy itself should be allowed in the 21st century, because the monarch itself as described above with its powers, the symbolisation of the country itself is the monarch as it is supposed to be, and as the people of the country also want the monarchy to be.

The presidential systems and the absolute monarchies (which is also the active chief executive officer of the government) should be decreased in their powers, the majority of the monarchies however are satisfying to the people needs, that�s also the reason why they are still here in the 21st century, not because they should be forbidden.