What do you think was a better type of government monarchial or republican?
I need a long but simple answer.
Answers
Answer:
Monarchy and Democracy seem to be two forms of government in a State. - the 1st, by a single ruler, based on family lineage (whatever be its origin - divine or earthly - the 2nd, settled on a popular basis, generally through a vote. Monarchies have been overthrown and replaced by democratic governments.
However in contemporary history, the reality seems to evidence some contradictory effects on this issue: formal monarchies that are democratic in governmental procedure ( Great Britain, Sweden) and some so-called democracies that were dictatorial ( Franquist Spain; Salazarist Portugal) or are dictatorial (Zimbabwe) and democracies that adopt monarchic ancestry or procedure (Siria, Angola).
So, I must conclude that the meaning behind a governmental procedure does not depend on how we classify or title a country, as far as its FORM of government is concerned. What matters is how they BEHAVE. Some Presidents act as if they are kings, adopting an unipersonal form of government or adopting policies only compatible with autocratic rule. However we find monarchies that continue to be one man's rule (Borneu).
So in accordance with above said examples, it seems however that monarchy is a forlorn system of government, there will not be no new monarchies. The majority of existing Monarchies simply represent a traditional form of national unity and will indue course of time come to and end simply by mingling with the common man as some already are. Tensions may only occur if the monarchic defenders push or force their persistence
can we conclude that although they may be democratic countries which are kingdoms, but nevertheless Monarchy and Democracy have a conflicting relationship?
Explanation:
pls mark me as a brainly pls