Why Some Nations have Dual Views About Democracy?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ethanol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dual
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of democracy, particularly in relation to the British monarchy and its role in Commonwealth countries. Participants explore the implications of having a monarchy in a democratic system, the nature of the Queen's powers, and the historical context of these institutions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the legitimacy of promoting democracy in nations with a monarchy, suggesting that the presence of a figurehead like the Queen contradicts democratic principles.
  • Others argue that the Queen serves as a ceremonial figure with no real political power, likening her role to that of a figurehead with limited influence.
  • There are claims that the financial implications of maintaining a monarchy versus a republic are not significantly different, raising questions about the monarchy's economic impact.
  • Some participants express a desire for a more rebellious attitude towards the monarchy, suggesting that cultural movements could challenge traditional views.
  • A viewpoint is presented that the Queen acts as a unifying figure within the government, providing historical context and mediation in conflicts.
  • One participant humorously compares the Queen's importance to that of a decorative item, indicating a dismissive attitude towards her role.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the monarchy's role and significance, with no clear consensus on whether the monarchy is compatible with democratic ideals. Disagreements persist regarding the Queen's influence and the value of tradition versus modernity.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the Queen's powers and the financial aspects of the monarchy depend on varying interpretations of constitutional roles and historical context, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

Ethanol
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I don't know why Britain wants democracy everywhere especially in commonwealth countries, since they have got a queen of their own. Is that democracy? The invaded Iraq to free it from a dictator who had his own parliment. The queen has got a parliment shouldn't she be thrown off.
It says in a newspaper that the queen once arrived in a five star hotel in Durbanwith one meagre piece of baggage but two tons of luggage arrived later and the staff had already been forwarded a six page document, detailing everything from right type of notepaper for her desk to how her bed should be made- sheets and blankets,not duvets, turned down to exactly 9 inchesbelow the eiderdown. Mauve blooms and carnations were royally banished from bouquets:TVs in the bedroom,bloody meat, and spicy food were all ruled out, and she would only drink Malvern mineral water-her own supply.

Aren't those ways of soveriegn Saddam himself who had ( as far as I know), 11 castle to his name.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ethanol said:
I don't know why Britain wants democracy everywhere especially in commonwealth countries, since they have got a queen of their own. Is that democracy?
The queen is basically no more than a figurehead. She has no more political power than any other person who is one of the richest in the world.
 
The Queen can only make suggestions and discuss things with the politicians, but has no power herself. They once calculated what would cost more money to the people, a republic or a monarchy: they don't differ that much :)

I DO think the royal family should be paying taxes though!
 
England is a parliamentary democracy. The queen is queen in name only. Iraq, on the other hand, was a military dictatorship. The parliament was a parliament in name only.
 
I don't believe the Queen even has the right to vote. Is that right, Brits?
 
Why is the figurehead placed then. I know the real powers lie with the parliment but as far as i know the queen is paid or something. And if she has any other means of earning a living what are those? What's with the showing off by the way? And i think as a british national the queen may have right to vote the candidate she favours.
 
The British just love their tradition, maybe we need a new batch of rebellious bands like the Sex Pistols to express hatred for the Queen and insight a revolution against the royal family.
 
Ethanol said:
Why is the figurehead placed then. I know the real powers lie with the parliment but as far as i know the queen is paid or something. And if she has any other means of earning a living what are those? What's with the showing off by the way? And i think as a british national the queen may have right to vote the candidate she favours.


The amount of money paid to the royal famiy falls far short ofthe tourist dollars spend while taking pictures of the palaces, or buying the tabloids with william's latest flind.
That and it's tradition.
 
We need a new batch of rebellious bands, regardless.
 
  • #10
I think the Queen acts as a binding factor of the parliament, she has well rooted tradition and mediates in conflicts. She has good knowledge of history and the nation itself. She's an advisor.
 
  • #11
I think she has as much importance to the government as the hood ornament on my car. (Come to think of it...)