Comment on What's the point of constitutional monarchies? Why even keep the monarchy in place if they aren't even doing anything?

• Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  ???

  What kind of idiot puts any substance into what name a country styles itself after rather than how it functions.

  source

  • BlueEther@no.lastname.nz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    ok, lets look at it the other way then? Image

    source

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Yup those are all European or European-colonial nations.

      You don’t see countries such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Cambodia on that list do you?

      source

      • BlueEther@no.lastname.nz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        So, what’s you point?

        I have given you a list of poor democracies that are ‘republics’ and a list of strong democracies that many/most of which are a constitutional monarchy of some flavour or another.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Merva@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    A republic just means that a country doesn’t have a heritable head of state. All of those countries are in actual fact republics. It says next to nothing about the actual political system of a country besides the role of the head of state. Lots and lots of dictatorships are republics. Many democracies are republics as well, but as you can see it is the dictatorship/democracy part which describes the important part of those countries political systems, not republic.

    Many Americans are confused about this, because they have been indoctrinated into thinking that republic is the main descriptor of their system. Mainly because it was an important descriptor back in the 18th century, when most countries were monarchies, but much less so in later times when most existing countries are republics.

    source