what is the good of maintaining and securing monarchy if it brings bad than good. a country does not becomes bad or better because of its head call monarchy or republic. It must come from the heart of the people who govern it irrespective of whether u r a king, president or whatever.
It saddens me how the monarchies of the old ages have been abolished by idoitic people who do not know their place in the empire. The US started this chain, and soon after because of them all the Nepal is the only true monarchy state left in the world. I would give anything to see the monarchs of old Europe and Asia brought back to save the world from the downfall it has started.
the british monarchy will remain forever, we are happy and the monarchy is the most effective, most well established, cheapest in many ways form of goverment for us, it benifits not just the uk but canada, australia, newzealand, jamaica ect....
@ownlearning Eventhough your queen is not allowed to have an opinion? Also, where are your FACT that the monarch is the 'cheapest' was? Maybe it is cheap yet you waste money on Prince William's wedding whom his granma is rich enough to fund.
I actually have more respect for the citizens of Nepal than I have of YOU and the other enSLAVED Brits.
@GermanConquistador08 Yes the US started this 'chain', and I supposed you ENVY my country. And why are you so 'sad' that you can't fund their pampered lifestyle. Don't you believe in equal rights like we American do?
@unknownunknowns "Don't you believe in equal rights like we American do?" - Yes I do actually. However, equal rights if often a tenent of monarchy. Class and privelege works the exact same way in republics as it does in monarchies, hard work. A monarch has NEVER risen to power and STAYED there without hard work to gain the position (Even in the case of heirs) and improved the lives of the people. Monarchs are far from pampered, at least when they have REAL power (Unlike England)
@GermanConquistador08 What are you talking about? Equal rights is a tenant of a monarchy when they were born to be guaranteed that power? I'm sorry but there is a reason why countries, one by one, are abolishing the monarchal system as they've been proven totalitarian, elitist, and above the law. I'm glad the American colonists got rid of their monarch and look at where we are. That's we you and other foreigners ENVY us.
@unknownunknowns "when they were born to be guaranteed that power?" - How is that eliminating equal rights? Voting rights I suppose but these are leaders born to do nothing but run the country. "one by one, are abolishing the monarchal system" - Actually no. No monarchy has ever voted to abolish itself. Every monarchy has ended either in violent radical revolution (Ex. Russia, Spain, Italy, France, Iran) or by force of other countries (Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, etc.)
@GermanConquistador08 I don't want them to be born 'to do nothing'. I want them to have substantive qualities. I want them to also experience being private citizens to avoid elitism.
America was under a monarch. Then, it abolished it but my founding fathers were wise not to adopt a dictatorship and going the route of the US Constitution.
@unknownunknowns "I don't want them to be born 'to do nothing'"-...But run the nation. "I want them to also experience being private citizens to avoid elitism." - Being in the elite does not instantly make you an elitist. Being power-hungry makes you an elitist. I've met middle-class people who are elitists. "America was under a monarch. Then, it abolished it" - America did NOT abolish the British monarch. They rebelled against it, Britian still has a constitutional monarchy.
@unknownunknowns "and going the route of the US Constitution" - Again CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy has consitutional in its title for the same reason as consitutional republics do. "They could have chosen a dictator but did not" - Monarchies are NOT dictatorships. A dictatorship is when a ruler rules without regard to the people. In a monarchy, the tide of public opinion sways the monarch who is the symbol and protector of his/her people. Both can be benevolent and malevolent.
@unknownunknowns Notice that in every one of those countries something WORSE came after the monarch. Russia-Soviets, Italy-Fascists, Germany-Nazis, Iran-Islamists, Yugoslavia-Communists, Spain-Socialists than Franco. Totalitarian? Despotistic maybe but even before the Enlightenment monarchies begain praticing the idea of the Enlightened monarchial system of ending serfdom and bringining freedom to the masses, like Frederick II, Catherine and Peter of Russia, Carlos I of Spain etc.
@GermanConquistador08 Here is the thing. I think it is a matter of FREE WILL in choosing the whatever constitution the citizen desire which is an example of my founding fathers. Also, in the Middle East they are asking for a democracy. They could have chosen a dictator but did not. So, this notion about 'abolishing the monarchy will lead to a dictatorship' is not always a valid one. Ultimately, it is the people who will decide.
@unknownunknowns Also, its worth mentioning that almost eveyr dictator in the history of the world has been elected. Those middle eastern dictators, only TWO werent elected. "So, this notion about 'abolishing the monarchy will lead to a dictatorship' is not always a valid one" - First of all non of the current protests are coming from monarchies. Theres a little bit in Saudi Arabia, but its no where near the scale of Egypt of Libya.
@unknownunknowns Also envy of America? Please. The world admires America's ECONOMIC prosperity and freedoms (Which are not offlimits to monarchies, often they have been very free states, especially after the enlightenement) But NO ONE has ever admired America's political system. No one has ever gone to America because it was a republic, if so they could go to ANY number of other nations. They went because it is a capitalist nation, a haven of the poor man who could crawl his way out of poverty.
@GermanConquistador08 Yes and that's due to the fact that my country is a republic but, eventhough I mentioned 'democracy', the US Constitution has check and balances where the executive branch is INDEPENDENT from the legislative, unlike the Prime Minister, to assure that what the majority says is verified. You see, I want elections but the majority needs to be confirmed that it is doing the RIGHT thing. It seems in the Europe, the populus is deciding at every whim for the minority (the rich).
@unknownunknowns "I want elections but the majority needs to be confirmed that it is doing the RIGHT thing." - Elections are also possible in a monarchy. Local governments are often ruled by elected representatives, even if there is no parliment, mayors and governors can be elected by the people even if vetted and screen by the monarch. "It seems in the Europe, the populus is deciding at every whim for the minority (the rich)." - I dont see that at all really.
@unknownunknowns "That's why Europe is socialistic." - Europe is solaistic simply because of the European Union which was mostly created by, and made up of Social Democrats and passed laws that adhere to Social Democracy AND those laws are encouraged and enforced by Social Democrats. Europe isn't socialist, the European Union is socialist (Yes, I make the distintion because the European Union is far from European. Yes I'm a Euro-sceptic)
@GermanConquistador08 You won't. Monarchies are destinied to end. Deal with it... or create a time machine and go back to your beloved aristocratic days, because you don't belong in this century, shithead.
@makokun9 "Monarchies are destinied to end" - It woulld seem so, but I dont see why. "or create a time machine and go back to your beloved aristocratic days" -Its not a matter of the aristocracy. There were Plutocratic monarchies but the fact of the matter is competing nobility helped keep monarchies from becoming stagnant, which is the greatest threat of modern governments more and more so today. "because you don't belong in this century"-I've known that for quite a while man.Doesnt make me bad
@GermanConquistador08 Bad? No. Utterly useless, romantic and impractical for present standards? Oh my! A thousand times yes. Be all that if you want to. You are entitled to it. Just don't act surprised when people remark your obvious uselessness.
@makokun9 "tterly useless, romantic and impractical for present standards?' -How so? Monarchy is quite applicable to the modern age. Yes its romantic, but thats the nature of escapism now isnt it? Finding what is better in a different world, time, era etc. and trying to bring it to the real world and I happen to find that monarchy is applicable to this in a couple of ways, provided that the system undergo changes to fit the modern age which is what is causing the downfall of the current monarchs
@GermanConquistador08 That is your old-fashioned and personal perception of the living corpse of a system you claim to be a supporter of. In practical terms, you are isolated, and those who think like you are becoming less and less by the day. If you want to defend a lost cause, that is your right too, but, as I said before, in this day and age, you will be, at best, laughing stock.
@makokun9 "that is your right too, but, as I said before, in this day and age, you will be, at best, laughing stock." -And again, I would challenge anyone to explain WHY they would be laughing at me. You included. WHY is monarchy a bad governmental system in your opinion?
@GermanConquistador08 Too conservative, too ostentatious, impossible to relate to, more representative of class than a nation as a whole, to name a few. There have been good monarchs, as well as despots, and good democratically elected heads of state, as well as dictators. The problem is that no matter how you look at it, Monarchy has no place in a modern world, with no need for status-based way of governing. The sole fact of being regarded as somebody´s "vassal" is nauseous.
@makokun9 "Too conservative" - In comparison to what? Being too conservative has no meaning in this context. "too ostentatious" -Again, in what context? To other monarchs? To other nations? You could make an arguement that democracies do the exact same thing only with multiple politicans. Do you really think that the G20 summits costed any less than the galas at Verseille or Sanssouci? "impossible to relate to" -AGAIN! In what context? Monarchs are often THE symbol of the nation, revered.
@GermanConquistador08 Revered... and eventually toppled. And that is what is going to happen, either through pacific of violent means, eventually, so you might as well enjoy them as you can. You cannot fight the tendency. Monarchies had their days being "symbols" of nations... which in reality are not, but merely an old fashioned way to preserve the status quo.
@makokun9 "Revered... and eventually toppled" -In very few cases have monarchies ever been truely toppled, what I mean to say was that monarchs are often the most popular people in the country. They are revered because they are a reflect of the society. Look at every bad monarch or evil dictator in history, then look at the culture they came from. Its easy to see the similarities. The same goes with every democratically elected politicans. Instead of just society influences, legacy, nobility...
@makokun9 If by upbrining than that would also apply to democratic heads of state who are often FAR more educated and wealthy than their countrymen. "more representative of class than a nation as a whole" -Again, in what context? You could make an arguement that the Upper-classes in democratic nations holds themselves in higher regards than their country or people and whiel thats an economic positive and works well to generate wealth, an upper class with a direct line to the heartbeat...
@GermanConquistador08 Yes, but why should the executive power depend by law ("divine" law XD) on dinastic linegae!? How can you expect people in this day and age to relate to such bullshit! It´s laughable!
@makokun9 "Yes, but why should the executive power depend by law ("divine" law XD) on dinastic linegae!?" - Because the governed desire a good leader. Who can be a better leader than someone raised from birth to accomplish that task? The people relate to it because when done correctly and under modern reforms a monarchy can still thrive in the modern world, the problem is almost no modern monarchy with the exception of the UK and Japan has implimented such reforms.
@GermanConquistador08 Then you have been living in a bubble all your life, because you see, designation is not synonym of justice or representation. You are either blind or trying (in vain) to monopolize what "people relate to". You are letting your outdated romaticism guide your judgement, and have thus become out of touch with reality, and for you, the sheer and painful reality is that a monarch has no longer the appeal, nor the moral value, in the eyes of modern people. Again, deal with it.
@makokun9 Iturbide actually was NOT a bad ruler, but he was a bad administrator. He believed that he could dismiss the congress and avoid scrunity for it. Also, economic struggles because of nations refusal to trade with Mexico due to Spanish influence, as well as some minor influences of resistance against Inturbide coming from the Masonic Lodges who recieved US support for Mexico to become a republic and then the final blow coming from a revolutionary army.
@makokun9 So arguebly, Iturbide's rule shows how political mismanangement along with economic and diplomatic pressures can destroy a monarchy HOWEVER, it doesnt prove that monarchy is a bad form of government because ANY government can become unstable via these measures. And yes, Maximillian wasnt even an Emperor of Mexico in my eyes, he was an Austrian put there by the French, and he was hated and rightly so. "designation is not synonym of justice or representation"- I never claimed so.
@makokun9 "the sheer and painful reality is that a monarch has no longer the appeal, nor the moral value, in the eyes of modern people. Again, deal with it." -And I've told you, for the last time, you are looking at monarchial examples from previous centuries THAT isnt going to be a respectible form of government, I agree. HOWEVER as I've said COUNTLESS times before only through modern reforms to better fit the modern age can monarchy survive in the future.
@makokun9 ..a direct heartbeat to the nation isnt such a bad thing. "with no need for status-based way of governing." - Like I said, a modern monarchy would need serious reforms. And one of those would be the prospect of a commenor's son having the opprotunity to become a King. The the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton. This sort of reform would not only allow the accessibility of the monarchy, but also end incestus relationships and dynastic problems.
@GermanConquistador08 Problem is that what you just described me is the ideal of a few... a little too late... after Dinastic Wars, Feudalism, Colonialism and other evils pulverized that utopia. Can you imagine Latin American countries accepting the idea of being lead by a monarch? Or China? They would loathe the mere though of it! In fact, countries like Canada are on its way of cutting ties with the British monarchy! It cannot be reversed. Wake up and smell the coffee already.
@makokun9 ...nobility as well as national values play into the development of a monarch in a way that democratically elected officials never can. "either through pacific of violent means, eventually" -Actually, an argument could be made that MORE violence occurs without a monarch. Iraq, Iran, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, multiple African countries, India just to name a few all suffered huge amounts of violence directly due to the end of a monarchy by a minority within, or a foreign force.
@makokun9 "Dinastic Wars, Feudalism, Colonialism and other evils pulverized that utopia" - First of all, colonialism is NOT a strictly Monarchial attribute. The Dutch Republic was the principle colonial power in the 17th century. "Can you imagine Latin American countries accepting the idea of being lead by a monarch?" -Considering how two (Brazil and Mexico) WERE under monarchies both representing how a successful and failed latin American monarchy works respectively.
@GermanConquistador08 And both models belong to the 19th Century, with much different standards from today. What´s worse, both Mexican rulers, Iturbide and Maximilian were utterly incompetent for the task, and both met their demise soon: the first one as a mere despot, the second as outright invader.
@makokun9 "And both models belong to the 19th Century, with much different standards from today." - Actually no, both are the only monarchies which have been reforming themselves to deal with the modern age. However, these are mostly figurehead monarchies, there are some ways in which a actual constitutional monarchy can perform in the modern age. "What´s worse, both Mexican rulers, Iturbide and Maximilian were utterly incompetent for the task" - my point exactly, they are were rulers. Why?
Nepalese people had democracy for more than 15 yrs... the result was corrupt political leaders..too many corrupt governments..Nepal still the poorest country..Now i heard its republic(dint'excite me at all)..country lost identity...party time for "to be corrupt" leaders.. i guess..good luck new nepal
u foreign news agency why don't u ask the question to real nepali journalist who knows how the nepal works why bother asking that dixit whoever he is who ain't even nepali not that i am being racist ,, but his newpaper have printed stuff that were views against the nepali people ,, so nepali ppl don't trust his stuffs ,, so i recommend u that u ask questions to real nepali journalist who are from the streets collecting news from the street
DOWN WITH THE CROWN AND UP WITH THE VOTE!!!
360Nomad 5 months ago
what is the good of maintaining and securing monarchy if it brings bad than good. a country does not becomes bad or better because of its head call monarchy or republic. It must come from the heart of the people who govern it irrespective of whether u r a king, president or whatever.
nastykurtbadboy 2 years ago
I think that this is a good thing whatever the people of nepal decide, it shows that they have the right to speak for themselves.
cqc75 2 years ago
It saddens me how the monarchies of the old ages have been abolished by idoitic people who do not know their place in the empire. The US started this chain, and soon after because of them all the Nepal is the only true monarchy state left in the world. I would give anything to see the monarchs of old Europe and Asia brought back to save the world from the downfall it has started.
GermanConquistador08 3 years ago 6
the british monarchy will remain forever, we are happy and the monarchy is the most effective, most well established, cheapest in many ways form of goverment for us, it benifits not just the uk but canada, australia, newzealand, jamaica ect....
ownlearning 3 years ago 4
@ownlearning Eventhough your queen is not allowed to have an opinion? Also, where are your FACT that the monarch is the 'cheapest' was? Maybe it is cheap yet you waste money on Prince William's wedding whom his granma is rich enough to fund.
I actually have more respect for the citizens of Nepal than I have of YOU and the other enSLAVED Brits.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Yes the US started this 'chain', and I supposed you ENVY my country. And why are you so 'sad' that you can't fund their pampered lifestyle. Don't you believe in equal rights like we American do?
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns "Don't you believe in equal rights like we American do?" - Yes I do actually. However, equal rights if often a tenent of monarchy. Class and privelege works the exact same way in republics as it does in monarchies, hard work. A monarch has NEVER risen to power and STAYED there without hard work to gain the position (Even in the case of heirs) and improved the lives of the people. Monarchs are far from pampered, at least when they have REAL power (Unlike England)
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 What are you talking about? Equal rights is a tenant of a monarchy when they were born to be guaranteed that power? I'm sorry but there is a reason why countries, one by one, are abolishing the monarchal system as they've been proven totalitarian, elitist, and above the law. I'm glad the American colonists got rid of their monarch and look at where we are. That's we you and other foreigners ENVY us.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns "when they were born to be guaranteed that power?" - How is that eliminating equal rights? Voting rights I suppose but these are leaders born to do nothing but run the country. "one by one, are abolishing the monarchal system" - Actually no. No monarchy has ever voted to abolish itself. Every monarchy has ended either in violent radical revolution (Ex. Russia, Spain, Italy, France, Iran) or by force of other countries (Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, etc.)
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 I don't want them to be born 'to do nothing'. I want them to have substantive qualities. I want them to also experience being private citizens to avoid elitism.
America was under a monarch. Then, it abolished it but my founding fathers were wise not to adopt a dictatorship and going the route of the US Constitution.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns "I don't want them to be born 'to do nothing'"-...But run the nation. "I want them to also experience being private citizens to avoid elitism." - Being in the elite does not instantly make you an elitist. Being power-hungry makes you an elitist. I've met middle-class people who are elitists. "America was under a monarch. Then, it abolished it" - America did NOT abolish the British monarch. They rebelled against it, Britian still has a constitutional monarchy.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns "and going the route of the US Constitution" - Again CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy has consitutional in its title for the same reason as consitutional republics do. "They could have chosen a dictator but did not" - Monarchies are NOT dictatorships. A dictatorship is when a ruler rules without regard to the people. In a monarchy, the tide of public opinion sways the monarch who is the symbol and protector of his/her people. Both can be benevolent and malevolent.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns Notice that in every one of those countries something WORSE came after the monarch. Russia-Soviets, Italy-Fascists, Germany-Nazis, Iran-Islamists, Yugoslavia-Communists, Spain-Socialists than Franco. Totalitarian? Despotistic maybe but even before the Enlightenment monarchies begain praticing the idea of the Enlightened monarchial system of ending serfdom and bringining freedom to the masses, like Frederick II, Catherine and Peter of Russia, Carlos I of Spain etc.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Here is the thing. I think it is a matter of FREE WILL in choosing the whatever constitution the citizen desire which is an example of my founding fathers. Also, in the Middle East they are asking for a democracy. They could have chosen a dictator but did not. So, this notion about 'abolishing the monarchy will lead to a dictatorship' is not always a valid one. Ultimately, it is the people who will decide.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns Also, its worth mentioning that almost eveyr dictator in the history of the world has been elected. Those middle eastern dictators, only TWO werent elected. "So, this notion about 'abolishing the monarchy will lead to a dictatorship' is not always a valid one" - First of all non of the current protests are coming from monarchies. Theres a little bit in Saudi Arabia, but its no where near the scale of Egypt of Libya.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns Also envy of America? Please. The world admires America's ECONOMIC prosperity and freedoms (Which are not offlimits to monarchies, often they have been very free states, especially after the enlightenement) But NO ONE has ever admired America's political system. No one has ever gone to America because it was a republic, if so they could go to ANY number of other nations. They went because it is a capitalist nation, a haven of the poor man who could crawl his way out of poverty.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Yes and that's due to the fact that my country is a republic but, eventhough I mentioned 'democracy', the US Constitution has check and balances where the executive branch is INDEPENDENT from the legislative, unlike the Prime Minister, to assure that what the majority says is verified. You see, I want elections but the majority needs to be confirmed that it is doing the RIGHT thing. It seems in the Europe, the populus is deciding at every whim for the minority (the rich).
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns "I want elections but the majority needs to be confirmed that it is doing the RIGHT thing." - Elections are also possible in a monarchy. Local governments are often ruled by elected representatives, even if there is no parliment, mayors and governors can be elected by the people even if vetted and screen by the monarch. "It seems in the Europe, the populus is deciding at every whim for the minority (the rich)." - I dont see that at all really.
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 That's why Europe is socialistic.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
@unknownunknowns "That's why Europe is socialistic." - Europe is solaistic simply because of the European Union which was mostly created by, and made up of Social Democrats and passed laws that adhere to Social Democracy AND those laws are encouraged and enforced by Social Democrats. Europe isn't socialist, the European Union is socialist (Yes, I make the distintion because the European Union is far from European. Yes I'm a Euro-sceptic)
GermanConquistador08 11 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 You won't. Monarchies are destinied to end. Deal with it... or create a time machine and go back to your beloved aristocratic days, because you don't belong in this century, shithead.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "Monarchies are destinied to end" - It woulld seem so, but I dont see why. "or create a time machine and go back to your beloved aristocratic days" -Its not a matter of the aristocracy. There were Plutocratic monarchies but the fact of the matter is competing nobility helped keep monarchies from becoming stagnant, which is the greatest threat of modern governments more and more so today. "because you don't belong in this century"-I've known that for quite a while man.Doesnt make me bad
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Bad? No. Utterly useless, romantic and impractical for present standards? Oh my! A thousand times yes. Be all that if you want to. You are entitled to it. Just don't act surprised when people remark your obvious uselessness.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "tterly useless, romantic and impractical for present standards?' -How so? Monarchy is quite applicable to the modern age. Yes its romantic, but thats the nature of escapism now isnt it? Finding what is better in a different world, time, era etc. and trying to bring it to the real world and I happen to find that monarchy is applicable to this in a couple of ways, provided that the system undergo changes to fit the modern age which is what is causing the downfall of the current monarchs
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 That is your old-fashioned and personal perception of the living corpse of a system you claim to be a supporter of. In practical terms, you are isolated, and those who think like you are becoming less and less by the day. If you want to defend a lost cause, that is your right too, but, as I said before, in this day and age, you will be, at best, laughing stock.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "that is your right too, but, as I said before, in this day and age, you will be, at best, laughing stock." -And again, I would challenge anyone to explain WHY they would be laughing at me. You included. WHY is monarchy a bad governmental system in your opinion?
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Too conservative, too ostentatious, impossible to relate to, more representative of class than a nation as a whole, to name a few. There have been good monarchs, as well as despots, and good democratically elected heads of state, as well as dictators. The problem is that no matter how you look at it, Monarchy has no place in a modern world, with no need for status-based way of governing. The sole fact of being regarded as somebody´s "vassal" is nauseous.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "Too conservative" - In comparison to what? Being too conservative has no meaning in this context. "too ostentatious" -Again, in what context? To other monarchs? To other nations? You could make an arguement that democracies do the exact same thing only with multiple politicans. Do you really think that the G20 summits costed any less than the galas at Verseille or Sanssouci? "impossible to relate to" -AGAIN! In what context? Monarchs are often THE symbol of the nation, revered.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Revered... and eventually toppled. And that is what is going to happen, either through pacific of violent means, eventually, so you might as well enjoy them as you can. You cannot fight the tendency. Monarchies had their days being "symbols" of nations... which in reality are not, but merely an old fashioned way to preserve the status quo.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "Revered... and eventually toppled" -In very few cases have monarchies ever been truely toppled, what I mean to say was that monarchs are often the most popular people in the country. They are revered because they are a reflect of the society. Look at every bad monarch or evil dictator in history, then look at the culture they came from. Its easy to see the similarities. The same goes with every democratically elected politicans. Instead of just society influences, legacy, nobility...
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@makokun9 If by upbrining than that would also apply to democratic heads of state who are often FAR more educated and wealthy than their countrymen. "more representative of class than a nation as a whole" -Again, in what context? You could make an arguement that the Upper-classes in democratic nations holds themselves in higher regards than their country or people and whiel thats an economic positive and works well to generate wealth, an upper class with a direct line to the heartbeat...
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Yes, but why should the executive power depend by law ("divine" law XD) on dinastic linegae!? How can you expect people in this day and age to relate to such bullshit! It´s laughable!
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "Yes, but why should the executive power depend by law ("divine" law XD) on dinastic linegae!?" - Because the governed desire a good leader. Who can be a better leader than someone raised from birth to accomplish that task? The people relate to it because when done correctly and under modern reforms a monarchy can still thrive in the modern world, the problem is almost no modern monarchy with the exception of the UK and Japan has implimented such reforms.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Then you have been living in a bubble all your life, because you see, designation is not synonym of justice or representation. You are either blind or trying (in vain) to monopolize what "people relate to". You are letting your outdated romaticism guide your judgement, and have thus become out of touch with reality, and for you, the sheer and painful reality is that a monarch has no longer the appeal, nor the moral value, in the eyes of modern people. Again, deal with it.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 Iturbide actually was NOT a bad ruler, but he was a bad administrator. He believed that he could dismiss the congress and avoid scrunity for it. Also, economic struggles because of nations refusal to trade with Mexico due to Spanish influence, as well as some minor influences of resistance against Inturbide coming from the Masonic Lodges who recieved US support for Mexico to become a republic and then the final blow coming from a revolutionary army.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@makokun9 So arguebly, Iturbide's rule shows how political mismanangement along with economic and diplomatic pressures can destroy a monarchy HOWEVER, it doesnt prove that monarchy is a bad form of government because ANY government can become unstable via these measures. And yes, Maximillian wasnt even an Emperor of Mexico in my eyes, he was an Austrian put there by the French, and he was hated and rightly so. "designation is not synonym of justice or representation"- I never claimed so.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@makokun9 "the sheer and painful reality is that a monarch has no longer the appeal, nor the moral value, in the eyes of modern people. Again, deal with it." -And I've told you, for the last time, you are looking at monarchial examples from previous centuries THAT isnt going to be a respectible form of government, I agree. HOWEVER as I've said COUNTLESS times before only through modern reforms to better fit the modern age can monarchy survive in the future.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@makokun9 ..a direct heartbeat to the nation isnt such a bad thing. "with no need for status-based way of governing." - Like I said, a modern monarchy would need serious reforms. And one of those would be the prospect of a commenor's son having the opprotunity to become a King. The the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton. This sort of reform would not only allow the accessibility of the monarchy, but also end incestus relationships and dynastic problems.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 Problem is that what you just described me is the ideal of a few... a little too late... after Dinastic Wars, Feudalism, Colonialism and other evils pulverized that utopia. Can you imagine Latin American countries accepting the idea of being lead by a monarch? Or China? They would loathe the mere though of it! In fact, countries like Canada are on its way of cutting ties with the British monarchy! It cannot be reversed. Wake up and smell the coffee already.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 ...nobility as well as national values play into the development of a monarch in a way that democratically elected officials never can. "either through pacific of violent means, eventually" -Actually, an argument could be made that MORE violence occurs without a monarch. Iraq, Iran, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, multiple African countries, India just to name a few all suffered huge amounts of violence directly due to the end of a monarchy by a minority within, or a foreign force.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@makokun9 "Dinastic Wars, Feudalism, Colonialism and other evils pulverized that utopia" - First of all, colonialism is NOT a strictly Monarchial attribute. The Dutch Republic was the principle colonial power in the 17th century. "Can you imagine Latin American countries accepting the idea of being lead by a monarch?" -Considering how two (Brazil and Mexico) WERE under monarchies both representing how a successful and failed latin American monarchy works respectively.
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 And both models belong to the 19th Century, with much different standards from today. What´s worse, both Mexican rulers, Iturbide and Maximilian were utterly incompetent for the task, and both met their demise soon: the first one as a mere despot, the second as outright invader.
makokun9 4 months ago
@makokun9 "And both models belong to the 19th Century, with much different standards from today." - Actually no, both are the only monarchies which have been reforming themselves to deal with the modern age. However, these are mostly figurehead monarchies, there are some ways in which a actual constitutional monarchy can perform in the modern age. "What´s worse, both Mexican rulers, Iturbide and Maximilian were utterly incompetent for the task" - my point exactly, they are were rulers. Why?
GermanConquistador08 4 months ago
Nepalese people had democracy for more than 15 yrs... the result was corrupt political leaders..too many corrupt governments..Nepal still the poorest country..Now i heard its republic(dint'excite me at all)..country lost identity...party time for "to be corrupt" leaders.. i guess..good luck new nepal
surexh 3 years ago 2
Dixit..........wow.........I have never found his analysis coming true!
9xymig3w 3 years ago 2
u foreign news agency why don't u ask the question to real nepali journalist who knows how the nepal works why bother asking that dixit whoever he is who ain't even nepali not that i am being racist ,, but his newpaper have printed stuff that were views against the nepali people ,, so nepali ppl don't trust his stuffs ,, so i recommend u that u ask questions to real nepali journalist who are from the streets collecting news from the street
grigorgrg 3 years ago
I am with you bro
Nepzblood 3 years ago
If you wanna see more go to w w w DOT nepalnews DOT com or w w w DOT election DOT gov Dot np
LukumRukumNP 3 years ago