Ask Your Question today
I feel that monarchies/autocracies are better than republics. They are a lot more efficient due to the lack of gridlock, as Congress all to often obstructs what the president puts forward (not to mention an all-to-powerful Supreme Court). Monarchies are no more corrupt than republics (when you think about it), and it's easier to "drain the swamp."
You make it sound like a monarchy is the only alternative to the US system. Your gridlock is bad, but monarchies are stupid and antithetical to modern values of equality and egalitarianism. There's no reason that a non-gridlock system couldn't be created that didn't involve hereditary monarchies. The UK Queen is looking like she's going to croak soon (I hope she hurries up with it) and then they'll have King Chuck and Queen Camilla. How ridiculous that will be. If the King/Queen was elected, it would be fine, but current monarchies are stupid.
I live in a Monarchy. She has very little say in what the politicians get up to. Corporates pull their strings just like in most republics nowadays.
Monarchies are awful, you have an old bag with no power treated like a God, where as a republic has a leader with power
I don't know. All I think of when I see those words are butterflies and bananas..
All you really need is a "Jacob Zuma" for president, then you soon come to realise that a country full of fools is governed by the biggest fool of them all!
it's true a monarchy is much more efficient and when you have a good ruler that would be phenomenal for the country. The problem is it's also efficient for bad rulers and the damage they do out ways the benefits of a good ruler.
A strong good hearted man can spend a life time building something great but it only takes a jackass a few years to destroy it.