Old 07-23-13, 06:11 AM
  #45  
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,937

Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
It's a ludicrous system, no denying it. But even a devout republican (in the non-American sense of the word) like me has to admit that there are some advantages in separating the roles of Head of State and Head of Government, and in elevating the former above party politics. Turns it into a unifying figure, to an extent.

Calling it a King or a Queen and choosing it on the hereditary principle is absurd, of course. But it seems popular, at the moment, and it isn't immediately easy to come up with an alternative system that wouldn't be divisive.
Most of the Western Monarchies in existence today are a form called a Constitutional Monarchy, where the King or Queen, as head of state is not involved in the day to day running of government, which is often an elected parliamentary system. This is similar to a Parliamentary Republic where an elected head of state is basically a drop in replacement for such a monarch. Most of the power is held by the Parliament, with some reserve powers retained, the monarch (or a selected representative of the monarch) signs passed bills into law, and has the ability to dissolve Parliament forcing an election. One of the interesting points, maintaining the monarchy has a reasonable cost. It costs Britain about £90 million a year for the monarchy, contrast that to say the cost of say a US presidential election.
Wogster is offline