The Union Truth Issue V - Form of Government?

So, today's debate at 4:52 pm CDT, (I'm only mentioning the time because there is supposed to be another one) was all about forms of government. The heated debate was about whether to have a Republic or Constitutional Monarchy. And the debate lasted for about 30 minutes. The two main debaters were The progressive states and Blazeville. Blazeville was for having a Republic, while The progressive states was for a constitutional monarchy. This was kind of weird because with the constitutional monarchy the founder would be a monarch but, the Blazeville who is the founder was actively against having a constitutional monarchy.

Before we move on let's discuss the pros and cons of Republics and Constitutional Monarchies.

Pros of a Republic Government

• The power and authority of government comes from the people, not some supreme authority.

• the people cannot be expected to have the time or interest to make important and regular decisions.

• representatives ensure the interests of all sections of society and minorities are taken into account.

• The people elect their executive either directly or indirectly.

• Representatives are elected by the people.
  

Cons of a Republic Government

• representatives may distort peoples’ demands to suit their political preferences.

• Corrupt representatives may want political gain rather than fulfilling the needs of the people.

• representatives may not make make themselves accountable enough between elections.

• only be removed by elections if they lose the respect of the people

• Representatives debate and vote upon their opinions and cannot decide what the people who elected
  them would do.
  

Pros of a Constitutional Monarchy

• The monarch has no limited terms, this is advantageous because it allows the country to develop strong ties with other nations, unlike in other governments where the leader is replaced every four years or so.

• Aside from a political role, the monarch provides a sense of history and culture.

• The king or queen in a constitutional monarchy serve as a symbolic and non-political head of state, while the political power and decision-making lies on a separate legislative body.

• Balance of power between monarch and government.

• Monarch's can advise, consult or warn leaders of the government.
  

Cons of a Constitutional Monarchy

• The monarch cannot be removed.

• monarchy is passed on by blood rather than by votes or appointment, there can be instances when a child who is still unfit to rule will be put on the throne.

• Whatever changes will be suggested must be carefully considered in deference to the royal family, which makes progression difficult.

• It promotes class privilege.

• lifestyle and the security provided for the royal family is an unnecessary expense for taxpayers.
  

Ok, back to Debate Coverage. The progressive states argued that for the Union to remain stable a one strong unelectable position was needed, and that would be a monarch. West tronia rejected this idea saying that:

" Our region was built upon republican ideals and we should upkeep that. The position of founder was kept to protect us from invaders and nothing else. Our founder Blazeville had a republic in mind when he created this region and he has proved now that this is the ultimate goal. Forget kings or emperors, NO CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES we are, will and will forever be a REPUBLIC." -- West tronia

Not to mention that having a constitutional monarchy would cause doubts of us being called a "Democratic Union".

The progressive states countered with asking "Should governments be of the People to be by the People?", there was a long silence after which Blazeville answered:

"The will of the people to recognize its governing body as absolute relies on how the people are affected by it, If governments directly affect the people then the people should have a say in their government." -- Blazeville

This was very persuasive and in the resulting vote it was decided that the Union would have a republic.
This leaves us with very interesting and mixed feelings. If the will of the government to protect its people rests on the people than why do we create monarchies? Should government be of the people to be by the people?

Thank you for reading, I will see you in the next issue.