Are you a monarchist or a republican (anti-monarchist)? I myself am a republican since I view the idea of a monarchy or any hereditary head of state (such as a hereditary dictatorship) as anti-egalitarian and a case of hereditary privilege, which I myself am inclined to oppose to a sizable extent. I believe that countries need unifying figures, true, but there's no particular reason that such figures need to be royalty; they could be other respected national figures, after all. Israel has a ceremonial president who is chosen among Israel's distinguished citizens and politicians, after all; even Albert Einstein was offered this job at one point in time, but declined. There's no reason that a similar principle can't apply to various other countries. And in such a scenario, countries could even choose former royalty to be their ceremonial president; there's no rule against it--it just won't be for life but will instead be for a set term such as 5 or 7 or 10 years. Bulgaria's former King became their Prime Minister for several years at the start of the 21st century, so there is some precedent for this, except here the position will be either mostly or completely ceremonial rather than having much actual power.
The one exception that I could make to my own anti-monarchist views would be if a country is rocked by chronic political instability, tyranny, et cetera. In such a scenario, maybe the strong guiding hand of a monarch really could be a significant benefit to it, such as Afghanistan if the Taliban will ever once again get overthrown there.
Anyway, what do you think?
The one exception that I could make to my own anti-monarchist views would be if a country is rocked by chronic political instability, tyranny, et cetera. In such a scenario, maybe the strong guiding hand of a monarch really could be a significant benefit to it, such as Afghanistan if the Taliban will ever once again get overthrown there.
Anyway, what do you think?