Republic Versus Monarchy - part one, section one
The Monarchy versus the ideal of democracy
A Republic, by the previously given definition, is inherently democratic: its representatives and leaders are elected by the people.
A Monarchy, on the other hand, is an inherently undemocratic concept: that of a Head of State who has never been elected by the people. As Adam Wynn so rightly pointed out:
"It is inconsistent if not hypocritical to try to instil in people an appreciation of democratic ideals, when our own head of state is the epitome of the exact opposite".(4)
Monarchs are not appointed by God, although in earlier times this was believed to be the case. The concept of "Divine Right of Kings" was that the Sovereign was subject only to God and not to the law.(5*)
In pre-modern times a Monarch could govern a state and wield vast powers (though not always absolute power), including powers over life and death. In modern times, this sort of autocratic power would be referred to as "totalitarian" and "fascist". Indeed, the Tudor dynasty in Britain has been referred to as "virtually a succession of regal dictatorships".(6) While Monarchies do not hold that sort of power nowadays, the fact remains that to have such an unelected Head of State is totally undemocratic.
Even if such a position is only symbolic, who would want to have a symbol of totalitarianism as their Head of State? The use of an undemocratic symbol as Head of State is unacceptable. The idea of a ruling Monarch is in direct opposition to the idea of democracy. This applies whether the Monarch is a ruler in reality, or in name only.
Democracy demands that the government of the nation is elected by the people, and that no public position should be granted on a hereditary basis. Democracy demands a Republic.
Republic Versus Monarchy
Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com/~natinfo
