Do you think presidents are better than kings?

Question

i am just curious about it.^^::

Answer 1

Since they are elected by the people whom they represent, they are better in the sense that they had to somehow earn that title, whereas a King just got born and is a ruler by accident.

Answer 2

It is not easy to answer your question, but maybe I can give you an exemple of something that happened in the past but that you can see in our timeperiod.

If we speak of a president:

In the government there are some politicians who lacking their job, or they are stealing from the national funds, most of it it will happen that the president is of the same political group as his ministers, so possible nothing will happen, a good exemple is what is happening in the united states.

If we speak of a King who has full power:

When there are Ministers who are not doing their job, he can fire them and they will be gone forever.

If we speak about a King in a federal state like belgium:

Ministers are stealing or the government is resigning, than it will always happen that the next government will be with the same people.

Which means the problems will never be fixed.

If we speak of the costs for a King or a President, than I think you are better off with a King.  Because normally it is only the close familly of the King that is getting paid, at least this is what is happening in belgium.

A president will always do things political for having personal profit.

If I have to make a choice between a president or a king , than i take the King.  A king is ruling his country like it is business.  A president on the other hand just thinks about his personal profits.

Again, A King is better.

Answer 3

presidents are better  

Answer 4

I think presidents are better than kings because their powers are passed not by family inheritance but by election of different people.  

Answer 5

Presidents because:

1) They are not in for life.

2) They don't pass on their leadership to their offspring.

3) They have an opposition which keeps them attuned to the needs of their constituents.

4) They are democratically elected.

Answer 6

presidents are better because they change after some years in addition with kings who stay in power for all their life.

Answer 7

presidents are better than kings because their power is checked. Well it's supposed to be... George bush is an exception to the rule.

Answer 8

president better than king because people have freedom that themselves choose their LEADER...

Answer 9

They aren't necessarily.  The United States, of course, chooses to elect a president every four years in part because  the Continental Congress rebelled against the non-representive rule of George III.  Citizens of countries where a new president is elected on a regular basis enjoy the idea of completely "turning the rascals out" every few years!  Nevertheless, the same bureaucracy continues to function whether a country is a constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic.

However, as a distant Scottish cousin once explained to me, many Brits prefer their system of government because they believe that the monarchy acts as a "check" on the parliamentary system.  In the meanwhile, the king or queen performs the host duties of a president and leaves the prime minister and his or her cabinet free to govern.  Presumably, citizens of other constitutional monarchies would defend their system of government with a similar justification.

Some countries have prime ministers and presidents; some countries have prime ministers and monarchs; some countries have presidents.  Each country's voters should feel free to select what works best for that particular country.

Answer 10

No.  I prefer to have a monarch as our head of state rather than some elected nonentity.  Also the monarchy is cheaper than a president would be.  

As for presidents not being corrupt - oh really, how naive can anyone get?

Answer 11

KING! with a king you get someone who's been trained their whole life for the job, you get value for money {I understand lots of countries still pay for retired presidents}, if a king does wrong he normally losses a lot more that the next election and they work for a lifetime in the USA they have a thing called the madness year or something similar because when it gets to a presidents last term he i likely to be more erratic and wont care.

Answer 12

I like the king because you don't have to go through voting and the decision. You know your king will have the best schooling and knowledge. The king will just be born and get his coronation when the king died/gives up. Plus there are chances to become his wife!  

Answer 13

I think that in the uk we have a good system the government can change due to elections

keeping the monarch as a focus for all the pomp and pageantry meeting and greeting of other heads of state

would any one of us like to have lived in Uganda under the regime of Armin or Zimbabwe under Mugabe at the moment

no I think I'll stay in the uk with the queen and her family  and  put up with which ever Pm we get

plus with the US the president get voted in every 4 years but the whole county has voting fever for at least 12 months before the event picking new party leaders which the junkets will cost a fortune which would be better spent fixing the houses in the deep south still in disrepair after katrina putting money into the project areas to help reduce the gang mentality and gun and drug culture .............admittedly we have problems here but still guns are not for sale in shops all over town ..................

ok my rant is over ...................climbing down from my soap box

Answer 14

It depends on the king.  If the king were a benevolent dictator, and could be guaranteed to not become corrupted, I'd take a king over a president any day.  But I don't think a true, uncorruptable benevolent dictator can be found, so we have to spread power around to minimize corruption.

Answer 15

It isn't comparing like with like.

They can both achieve great things, but the worst case is less catastrophic for a King; Presidents can do infinitely more damage.

Answer 16

No i do not think that but presidents need to be born in a Royal family president bush i think he would not be a good king of a country?  

Answer 17

Kings. Presidents, more often than not, are unscrupulous bigots. Kings, being given the right to govern by birth have to follow strict guidelines in order to protect the reputation of the royal family. And not so much now, but in centuries past, Kings believed it was Gods will that they were who they were, which had a hand in steering their conscience~  

Answer 18

you're stuck with a king for life, so if you get a bad king--short of a military coup, you're not getting rid of him.

presidents can be elected out of office as well as forced to resign if they are horrendously bad.