You believe that a limited monarchy, governed by a constitution, can provide stability, continuity, and a unifying national figurehead while still maintaining democratic principles.
Constitutional Monarchism is a form of government in which a monarch acts as the head of state within the parameters of a constitution, which outlines the legal framework for the government's operations. This constitution, whether it be written or unwritten, effectively controls the monarch's powers, balancing them with other branches of government such as the judiciary and the legislature. The monarch's role in this political system is largely ceremonial, with the day-to-day running of the country typically being the responsibility of an elected parliament.
The origins…
Read more@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
Imagine if a constitutional monarch could use their ceremonial influence to spotlight mental health, how might this shape public perception?
@9KF24VW3mos3MO
It might make public opinion of them more postive.
@9KHTYKWAmerican Solidarity3mos3MO
Their Influence on the common folk will grow, and in tandem so will their power, but if their status is ceremonial then that does not guarantee the Politicians will do anything. The monarch will have to use their own wealth to open a mental institution for research or whatever. This would force the hand of parliament for if the politicians did nothing and didn't open a research facility themselves, it would be considered a political failure. Showing the people that the politicians of the bureaucracy care not for them, but instead with power and greed. This causes the king's power and influence to increase over nation.
@9KFF8ZK3mos3MO
it gives the "im one of the people" argument. alows for citizen enagement within the political monarchy
@9KFF6DK3mos3MO
The more we increase exposure and conversations about mental, the more likely we are to decrease mental health stigma and increase treatment seeking.
@9KF2KS83mos3MO
People will realize that mental health is an attack of someone fighting their own thoughts and mind. It is not a battle that is physically seen and it is worse than typical abuse.
@EnderKilgannon 3mos3MO
I know the president can veto and sign and has some power, but I do see them more as an influencer than a law maker. The vice president is used in this role, and spotlights things that are happening, but they play into politics, where a monarch has no reason to do so.
@9KF32WC3mos3MO
This might shape mental health in a positive light.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
If a family member disagreed with your respect for a ceremonial monarch, how would you explain your viewpoint?
"It works well for Britain, look at them. They aren't nearly as divided as us and we're supposed to be called the UNITED states. Not looking so good for us."
@9LDSG4B1mo1MO
constitutional monarchies can reduce the stakes of politics, helping to sustain constitutional democracy against challengers, and integrating the nation.
@9LDS8C71mo1MO
No, because there is no point of explaining if they disagree with you.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
How would your daily life change if a monarch was a prominent figure representing your country's values and traditions?
@9L2QSDL2mos2MO
I think it would change a lot because there is someone representing our counry values, traditions, concers, and norms within our area.
@9L2NSSSRepublican2mos2MO
I believe there would be a drastic change, living under one ruler that makes all of our decisions as a country would probably not be in best interest for the people. I think the system we have now, although it isn't perfect, is the right system to have.
@9L2NKT32mos2MO
It would change because I would have less freedom and the rules and regulations would be more olden days.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Do you believe a constitutional monarchy is adaptable enough to survive the social and political changes of the 21st century?
@9H8YZJ66mos6MO
No, I believe in the 21st century people would not tolerate a Constitutional Monarchy that has not been long standing. People have gotten used to having control of their lives, or the idea of having control of their own lives. They have more faith in a collective of fellow citizens instead of a figurehead.
@9H8YPBC6mos6MO
There should be no one single man or woman having full control over the country. At this day of age, the people's voices matter the most.
@9H8YC656mos6MO
no, monarchys are outdated and bound to make people unhappy. people should get to choose who their leader is
@9H8YBTB6mos6MO
I think it is enough to survive the social and political changes of the 21st century because it follows process to make changes and has rules and laws.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Can a figurehead monarch effectively unify a nation in your opinion?
@9HN2NDC5mos5MO
No, having only one primary figurehead without any sort of congress will leave the majority of people unrepresented in government.
@9HN2JM45mos5MO
No; the leaders of the U.S have to remain in the people's power, otherwise we get closer to a dictatorship with each election.
@9HN2TTD5mos5MO
No, they cannot because there will be too much power and with much power comes responsibility.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
How would you feel if your country suddenly transitioned to a constitutional monarchy?
@9HGMZCZ5mos5MO
I would feel extremely ripped of my rights and I would be confused, I would feel like it would be a hard adjustment.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
How could the presence of a monarchy impact the political atmosphere of a country?
@9HN27QY5mos5MO
It would impact it in such a way where the political atmosphere would surely change to be more atmospherical and overall just Monarchal.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
What do you think about using taxpayers' money to support a royal family's ceremonial duties?
@9HMZ2LXRepublican5mos5MO
The only time taxpayers money should be used for a ceremony is for fallen soldiers
@9HMZ2J55mos5MO
i think its stupid because the rich just keep getting richer but pay the same tax as middle class and its dumb because middle class has no oppurtunity because theier just feeding money into the rich its a never ending loop
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Is it fair for taxpayers to financially support a royal family in a constitutional monarchy?
@9HCRDZKProgressive6mos6MO
Absolutely not. Tax payers should not have to support the royal family's extravagant life style.
@9HCRCPL6mos6MO
I think so but should make sure citizens and all are okay with it.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Would the idea of a constitutional monarchy change your sense of civic responsibility?
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
Imagine if your school principal's role was purely symbolic—what changes in school dynamics would you expect?
@9JQ78TD3mos3MO
A lot of students would be more free to speak their minds and not fear retaliation
@9JQ6ZLDRepublican3mos3MO
I think the teachers would end up having more power in the formation of educational policies and discipline, which may or may not be a good thing. On one hand, you’d have teachers with outdated beliefs allowed to make the call on disciplinary matters which could be a disaster and an instant news headline. On the other hand, the educational reform could swing in a positive way.
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO
Is it fair for someone to be born into a position of national significance?
@9HN2MTN5mos5MO
I do not think it is fair, but it is inveitable, because kids from rich families and famous families already have great recognization wheter they like it or not.
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
