Swedishguy said:
Interesting opinions... but WHY?!
Offices and their purpose and authority.
Developed countries normally divide powers between several offices, for many reasons, but balance is an important one. Finland, for example, has a prime minister as well as a president, as do France. Germany has a president and a union chancellor and Sweden has a prime minister and a king. These offices has different purposes in different countries. A prime-minister can do the job of a president and vice versa. A king can above his other duties fill the role of a president and probably with more authority, but a president can't fill the role of a king.
Unification behind fundamental common values.
Some people liked the former prime minister of Sweden, many didn't. Some people like the present prime minister of Sweden, many don't. But both their parties have built their political base on the basic common values that make up the foundation of our entire society. The king is above the political daily jabbering. He is a representative for
all of Sweden. He enjoys a 85-90% approval in ratings. How many politicians have such support year after year?
The constitution of politicians and politics
It's not the people that rule our country, it's the individuals we get to choose between every fourth year that do. They are picked by their parties for their ability to promote themselves and run a campaign. Many of them have a taste for power, but are not necessarily the best at wielding power. Actually I have a notion that the more developed a country is, the less competence to be found in the parliament, as the competent leaders will search for more challenging tasks in businesses elsewhere.
A monarch, born into office, may not be the best suited for his/her job either, but will be trained from the beginning to become better at the job, and will never have to be a part of the humiliating or degrading circus that our beloved elective system often turns out to be.
Much to lose economically by doing away with monarchy.
The royal house gets ca 85 million kronor (9 million €/12 million $) every year from the total of our taxmoney, wich is equal to a piss in lake Mälaren. More than half of that sum goes to upkeep of important cultural buildings and institutions. Money we have to spend even if Sweden was a republic. The rest of the money is spent on whatever necessary for the king and queen to do their job, wich is working their arses of here and abroad, for the good of our people. Calculations show that business in Sweden benefits economically from the work that the royals do and so we actually earn money by having a royal house. If we installed a presidential office it would most likely cost us much more and give much less in return.
Much to lose culturally by doing away with monarchy.
We have had kings and queens in this country for more than 1500 years. Some elected and some born into office. Removing such an ancient-old institution would be devastating for cultural reasons. It would be like taking a huge part of our history and throw it in the wastebin, or in civ-terms, like building the pyramids early and then rase them halfway through the game. Only a socialist or a taliban would honestly suggest such a thing.
Excellent! I suppose you're referring to Jordan the country and not Jordan the Michael, even though he's a king in his own domain?
