Quote:
Originally posted by Schwan
...and yet so many countries keep up with it, blatantly refusing to acknowledge that they?re being exploited by a bunch of people living in castles.
|
It was a good question, until this bit ruined it. I could say the same about the US president, along with all his wealthy supporters. Royalty does not equal exploitation, just like a President isn't always out to do what's best for his people.
We have a queen in the Netherlands, who is the *nominal* head of state. We're still a democracy, and there's not much the queen can do politically. She can refuse to sign laws, but that's unlikely to happen. She could refuse to accept a certain government, but (again) that's theoretical. I'd say she's not even remotely as powerful as the US president (and I'm not even talking about world power - just political power). She's a figurehead, where the US President is actually in control. In our country, that role is for the prime-minister, and even he can't do much without the support of his (and his coalition's) political parties.
Is this a better solution than a republic? Yes and no. If I were in charge, the royal family would be removed from politics altogether, and they wouldn't get one dime from our taxes. In their place, I'd like a President of similar political power, who can be voted out of office if he/she fucks up. We can't do that with our King/Queen, which is annoying at times. On the other hand, I have yet to see the royal family do anything *really* stupid.