So, it would seem that the Liberal equivalent of the NDP's name-change resolution and Conservative party's abortion/gay rights/pick-your-social-conservative-issue resolution at this year's party convention will be a
youth wing resolution to consider severing ties with the monarchy. I'll be shocked if this resolution ends up being seriously debated, and even more shocked if, in the unlikely event it gets passed, the issue is not sent to an oubliette of long-term committee study.
I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I have very strong objections to a system of government where one can only aspire to be head of state if one is born into the right family. But I don't want to dwell on that here. In discussing this issue with a friend, the following question popped to mind, and I was wondering if any defenders of the monarchy could answer it. Here it is:
If a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) is such a great system of government, then why don't we see newly formed states adopting it?I'll admit that my knowledge of global history is not all-encompassing, but what was the last instance of a newly formed state, particularly one which was not once a part of the British Commonwealth, that decided to choose a form of monarchy as their new system of government?
ETA: A friend of mine suggests North Korea as a de facto new monarchy, with the third generation of the Kim family having ascended to the leadership in recent weeks. Hmm... Labels: monarchy
