Which type of a Government according to you is the best? And why?
1) Democracy.
2) Federalism.
3) Communism.
4) Dictatorship.
5) Monarchy.
6) Constitutional Monarchy.
7) Military Rule.
8) Republic.
9) Democratic Republic.
10) Parliamentary.
@xerox But then he has puppet masters, and he could be a spoiled brat. Also, who would feel loyalty to a monarch that is temporary? It usually takes time for people to feel loyalty.
@Mickeyryn Communism never works. It would work in a very small society of 50 or less people, but the chances of it working as more people are added decreases quickly. Monarchies result in the loss of rights (except in a constitutional monarchy, which in modern times, constitutional monarchs are usually just rulers in name only). Dictatorships result in the loss of rights, too, always crushing opposition. Although a dictatorship has worked economically in Chile because the dictator went with capitalist policies, people still go missing and get killed for disagreeing with their government.
Basicaly upgraded monarchy where the king changes every 5 years but only a kid could be a king, A kid that is not yet corrupted by whatnot.
Yahhh, point for a child king is to be the FACE of the entire country, like the Queen is for england, but to have pretty much no power :3
But if the royalty has no real power, there's no reason to have it be a child (corrupted or not, without real power, it could be anyone). And I doubt that a child is a wise choice for a representative of a country, mostly for the reason nicho mentioned.
I still think it's a good idea. There are things that kids know better than grown ups . Like they know how to not be serious. Seriousness ruin countries. If we have someone older, he would just want more power.
In those kind of situations we need someone really nice and kind, loved by the people, but thats pretty much impossible with someone old who can think and make people love him. Kids on the other hand dont really think in a way others do.
I still think it's a good idea. There are things that kids know better than grown ups . Like they know how to not be serious. Seriousness ruin countries. If we have someone older, he would just want more power.
But kids are incapable of understanding some of the more complex situations, which is vital for anyone ruling/representing a country. Most likely a child king or queen would end up being manipulated by its entourage anyway.
In those kind of situations we need someone really nice and kind, loved by the people, but thats pretty much impossible with someone old who can think and make people love him. Kids on the other hand dont really think in a way others do.
- So according to you, old people are all mean sociopaths that are detested by the rest?
- Where's the difference between "loved by the people" and "someone who can make people love him"? I assume that by the latter you implied manipulation?
- And what do you mean by "someone (old) who can think"? I really do hope that a country's leader/representative can think :P
I don't think a constitutional monarchy is altogether a bad idea - lots of European countries have small minorities would over the years have polled in favour of such systems. At the very least, they can provide a personified symbol of a country to rally around, at its very best, I think a constitutional monarchy can gel a country together in times of grave need.
However, such a system would not need to be centered around a child, because it would defeat the purpose of having the child be the recognisable face of a country. A monarch, or at least a monarch these days, is theoretically trained from young to be instilled with desirable values. They are to exude graceful charm, instill dignity in the system, showcase the utmost decorum in exhausting diplomatic and political rituals, I think that to expect a child to fulfill such a monumental role would be both awfully unfair and risky, not to mention near impossible.
Nor would a constant swap of monarchs be a sound idea (I feel). The purpose of such a monarch lies as much in permanency of the person's role (Until at least, he/she has to abdicate in their dotage, or some political scandal) - a constantly changing and temporal monarchy would be contrary to its purpose.
