Catch-up on very old theatrical_muse question: Which is better, democracy or monarchy?
This is a complicated question for a man in my position. I've sworn an oath to uphold the British monarchy, particularly its current ruler, but the country I live in is effectively a democracy. I can't really look at either system from an objective point of view, so I'll just have to do the best I can.
There's a lot that can go wrong with either system, really. I've always believed in self-responsibility and self-determination, so that naturally leads to democracy. Can't get much more self-determined than selecting your own government, after all. At least, not as long as everyone who votes takes some time first and thinks things through. It's pretty irresponsible to cast your ballot when you don't know as much as possible about the subject you're voting on. A government that's been installed by ignorance is a very dangerous thing.
Monarchy can be almost as dangerous as an uninformed democracy, when it comes right down to it. A bad king or queen is installed for life, and his or her subjects don't have any recourse. The king or queen is the highest power in the land, after all. If you get a bad democratically elected government, you can always get rid of it in a few years. A bad king or queen has to abdicate or die before you're rid of them. I'll admit that overthrowing a bad king or queen is probably easier to justify than overthrowing a bad elected government. A poorly chosen government is still one that the people chose themselves. A bad king or queen is simply the result of random chance.
A good king or queen, on the other hand, is going to be good for quite some time. It's a lot easier to educate one person and shape his or her conscience than it is to educate an entire country. If you get a good Parliament and Prime Minister, you're probably going to lose them in a few years unless people still like them. Get a good king or queen, and you've got them for life.
And then there's war. It's hard for people at war to unite and give their loyalty to an entire elected government. There's nothing for them to hang their hats on, so to speak. They don't have a familiar face or symbol to turn to, and there's no enduring figure to assure them that the country will still be there when the fighting is finally over. I don't believe there's ever been an army that went into battle crying, "For God and Parliament!". Oliver Cromwell's army doesn't count; the Puritans had their religion to unite them.
I think, in the end, that democracy is a very good idea. It doesn't meet everyone's needs, though, and it can be just as dangerous if it's not handled correctly. I'd have to come down in favour of a constitutional monarchy, with the king or queen's powers limited by law and a significant role for the elected part of the government. I'd also have to add that any democracy's got to include a really good education system if it's going to work at all.
Muse: Sergeant Preston, RCMP
Fandom: Sergeant Preston of the Yukon (radio)
Word count: 524
There's a lot that can go wrong with either system, really. I've always believed in self-responsibility and self-determination, so that naturally leads to democracy. Can't get much more self-determined than selecting your own government, after all. At least, not as long as everyone who votes takes some time first and thinks things through. It's pretty irresponsible to cast your ballot when you don't know as much as possible about the subject you're voting on. A government that's been installed by ignorance is a very dangerous thing.
Monarchy can be almost as dangerous as an uninformed democracy, when it comes right down to it. A bad king or queen is installed for life, and his or her subjects don't have any recourse. The king or queen is the highest power in the land, after all. If you get a bad democratically elected government, you can always get rid of it in a few years. A bad king or queen has to abdicate or die before you're rid of them. I'll admit that overthrowing a bad king or queen is probably easier to justify than overthrowing a bad elected government. A poorly chosen government is still one that the people chose themselves. A bad king or queen is simply the result of random chance.
A good king or queen, on the other hand, is going to be good for quite some time. It's a lot easier to educate one person and shape his or her conscience than it is to educate an entire country. If you get a good Parliament and Prime Minister, you're probably going to lose them in a few years unless people still like them. Get a good king or queen, and you've got them for life.
And then there's war. It's hard for people at war to unite and give their loyalty to an entire elected government. There's nothing for them to hang their hats on, so to speak. They don't have a familiar face or symbol to turn to, and there's no enduring figure to assure them that the country will still be there when the fighting is finally over. I don't believe there's ever been an army that went into battle crying, "For God and Parliament!". Oliver Cromwell's army doesn't count; the Puritans had their religion to unite them.
I think, in the end, that democracy is a very good idea. It doesn't meet everyone's needs, though, and it can be just as dangerous if it's not handled correctly. I'd have to come down in favour of a constitutional monarchy, with the king or queen's powers limited by law and a significant role for the elected part of the government. I'd also have to add that any democracy's got to include a really good education system if it's going to work at all.
Muse: Sergeant Preston, RCMP
Fandom: Sergeant Preston of the Yukon (radio)
Word count: 524