form of government

Status
Not open for further replies.

Target

Est. Contributor
Messages
493
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur
There is something popped in my mind.
102 years ago, in Italy, Republic born, and after 2 years our Constitution.

Here it is the question: if, in your country, there will be an election to decide if have a monarchy or republic, what should you vote?

I'll vote for republic
 

IncompleteDude

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,083
Role
Private
I'd vote for a monarchy, because I like my Queen! (Queen Elizabeth). That's the way it is now in Canada, a constitutional monarchy, and I think it's just fine.

First post! :p
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
To be awkward, wouldn't voting for a monarchy more or less make it a republic? What with the voting and all...

Still, I think a republic is a better form of government. The only real reason that monarchies still exist in developed countries as far as I can see is that it's not worth the trouble of overhauling the system that keeps one. Elizabeth Windsor remains monarch of Britain (and Australia, Canada and so on) because a system has evolved around her position that works – she has no real role in politics other than ceremony and technicality and that allows parliament and a prime minister to function and govern with as much autonomy as a head of state so what would be the use in reneging on thousands of years of tradition and creating an elected position that would undermine the established democratic structure and lessen stability?

Personally, as I said, I prefer the republican model because I detest the notion of having an unelected person as my head of state, however perfunctory that position may be, but the reasons above are why I think monarchies endure to this day.
 

ShippoFox

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,017
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little, Other
I'd say socialism, but it never works right. People screw it up with greed and hunger for power. So.... republic with some limited socialistic elements. I guess. But between monarchy and republic...... I suppose I'd go with republic.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
Socialism isn't a form of government it's an economic perspective or ideology - a style. The form of a government is simply how it is structured whereas the style is what policies are practised. In short:

Forms of government = republic, dictatorship, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, constitutional monarchy, etc.

Styles of government/political and economic philosophies = socialism, capitalism, conservatism, communism, liberalism etc.
 

Takashi

Always willing to give help to those who seek it.
Est. Contributor
Messages
2,969
Role
Carer
German Fashism :D but if I have to choose it would be Republic.
 

ShippoFox

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,017
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little, Other
I thought Socialism was a type of government and Communism was a type of economic system? I'm probably wrong though.... it's confusing....
 

Pojo

Est. Contributor
Messages
5,920
Role
Private
Monarchy if I'm in charge...But isn't an election to determine if there is going to be a monarchy a bit ironic/oxymornonic?
 

whitefox

Est. Contributor
Messages
526
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Other
I'm pretty sure both socialism and communism are types of governments. There is a political leader in both cases, and the first thing that leader would do would be to set up a one-party system. Think about Joseph Stalin. If his socialism wasn't a type of government, he pretty much could tell the actual government what to do anyway.

By the way, I'd vote for a republic. At least with the elected leaders we can blame some of the voters when they vote for a crappy leader.
 

paddedhawk

Est. Contributor
Messages
171
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Stalin was a dictator who happened to follow a communist view of economics.

Oh and my choice is a democratic republic, it's not much use having representatives if they aren't accountable to the people
 

tiger2

Est. Contributor
Messages
118
Role
Diaper Lover
well....
in australia theres a republic vs constitutional monarchy thing at the moment
and oddly, i don't mind the constitutional monarchy, it doesn't affect us that much
and when someone screws up big time it helps (ala Gough whitlam)
so if i have to vote, as much as i have problems with it, id vote for a constitutional monarchy.
 

Verscha

Est. Contributor
Messages
272
Role
Private
In modern European politics, the remaining monarchs are nothing more than figureheads. On paper they retain power, but in reality the only time they use it is at the behest of the leader of the government of the day.

But it would be nice to eliminate the aristocracy nonetheless.
 

Jaiden

Est. Contributor
Messages
686
Role
Private
I'm pretty sure both socialism and communism are types of governments. There is a political leader in both cases, and the first thing that leader would do would be to set up a one-party system. Think about Joseph Stalin. If his socialism wasn't a type of government, he pretty much could tell the actual government what to do anyway.
No, people make that assumption quite a lot but socialism and dictatorship are not intrinsically linked. A socialist country does not have to have any particular type of leadership - it can be socialist and a democracy, socialist and a dictatorship or any other form of government you care to mention. The socialist part just means that there is public control of the means of production, some form of command or mixed economy, a welfare state and so on and such like, it has nothing to do with how the government is administrated. It's a little unfortunate that whenever socialism or communism is mentioned people think of the Soviet system but the two are not inseparable. Stalin's ideology was a style of socialism and his method of governance was authoritarianism - the two are quite distinct.
 

Peachy

Banned
Messages
7,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer
We went from monarchy to democracy to dictatorship to democracy. Getting rid of systems where only one person was in charge (monarchy and dictatorship) was brought about by losing a war.
However, back in 1870 when the country was founded, no one got to vote for what system should be used. The people already in charge at that time certainly did not care to lose their power. Democracy is something you (usually) don't ect into existence - you gotta fight for it! Except...

Monarchy if I'm in charge...But isn't an election to determine if there is going to be a monarchy a bit ironic/oxymornonic?
It is, and yet Nepal did vote about keeping the monarchy. On December 28 last year, the people decided to abolish it and set up a republic instead. I'd say it's the only time when something like that has ever happened.

Peachy
 

Charlie

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Carer, Other
I quite like the fact that the Queen can legally stop a party becoming in charge of the country. That way if a super evil party manages to win an election by cheating or something mad like that, she can tell them to piss off. It's quite a nice backup, and since all the armed forces have to swear themselves to the Queen, she would probably win the Civil war.
And yet the Queen can never get power mad, because she's just a figure head.

I like the system, if the government goes mad, we're safe, but we still get a proper democracy.
 

Peachy

Banned
Messages
7,449
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Carer
I quite like the fact that the Queen can legally stop a party becoming in charge of the country. That way if a super evil party manages to win an election by cheating or something mad like that, she can tell them to piss off. It's quite a nice backup, and since all the armed forces have to swear themselves to the Queen, she would probably win the Civil war.
And yet the Queen can never get power mad, because she's just a figure head.

I like the system, if the government goes mad, we're safe, but we still get a proper democracy.
Bah...you lazy bastards :tongueout: Our constitution says that we - the people - must fight to get rid of any power that wishes to go against human rights (in other words: evil).

Peachy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top