Monarchies are superior than Republics

No random blogs shall be used as sources. Let the debate begin!1- Political stabilityMonarchies are more stable than Republics for two reasons: the monarch doesn't belong to a party and he has a lifelong and hereditary position. The first reason is easier to understand. A neutral Head of State avoids conflicts between the Executive and the Legislative or (in Parliamentarian Republics) between the prime-minister and the President. In Republics, the Presided must represent the beliefs of the party. In Monarchies, the Monarch must represent the beliefs of the people. For example, in the United States the President is Democrat, but the Congress is Republican and they had a lot of disagreements, like the Obamcare and the more serious Government Shutdown. It would be impossible for a situation like that to happen in Constitutional Monarchies like the UK, Norway or Belgium. Another advantage for a neutral Monarch is the formation of the government. If no parties on the Parliament gets a majority to form a government, the Monarch can suggest someone that he, in his neutral role of Head of State, thinks is the better for the position. In 2011, Belgium passed 18 months without a government when the King intervened and appointed a new PM. In a Republic, the president would try to solve the problem only if it would benefit it's party. The second one is a little tricky. A Monarch will support long-term policies, since he has a long life position. He won't try do destroy a good legacy left by the antecedent government, but he'll try to continue the policy, since he's only interest is the welfare of his subjects. It's common in most Republics to see a new government from a different party destroying the legacy of the old government only because it was from another party. 2- Political CorruptionMonarchies are less corrupt than Republics. First because the Monarch is not elected he doesn't have to favour an economic group or a party when he is in power. Second, historically Monarchs were in most cases a moral example. Therefore, the people below him would follow the example and political corruption would be harder to occur, since if they were corrupt they wouldn't have the monarch support to form a government. And if you look at the Corruption Perception Index, 7 of the 10 less corrupt countries are Constitutional Monarchies, while the first two positions are filled by Denmark and New Zeeland, two Constitutional Monarchies.3- Economy Monarchies are better economically for the country, for three reasons: they are cheaper than Republics, they value continuity and they have a status. Yes, Monarchies are cheaper than Republics. In Republics there is not only the costs for the President and he's staff but also for ex-Presidents and their staff. The Republic costs for Portugal costs almost the double that the monarchy cost for Spain. The French Republic is the most expensive of Europe and it costs more than any of it's Monarchies. And there are monarchies that don't cost anything to the tax payers, like Liechtenstein. The second reason I already explained before. Monarchs don't aim for the next elections, they aim for the next generations. They won't support populist policies, but policies that will bring prosperity to their countries in long term. Thirdly, they have a status. Yes, this is a very big deal. The status of the monarchy generates millions on products related to it, in tourism and it helps expanding the countries image through the world. Think about the money generated by tourism in Royal Weddings, coronations, jubilees, etc. No Republic can do that. .The international status of the monarchy is also helpful. Many Arab countries won't make business with other countries unless they send (A) the President of the United States or (B) a Monarch. If a country needs an oil contract in the Middle East, it is good to have a Monarchy.4- LegitimacyA Monarchy is a more legitimate than a Republic. There is no philosophical argument or whatsoever that justifies why someone who has 51% of the votes should rule a country of millions of people. In Republics, you don't elect the best candidate, you elect the one with most campaign donations, the one who used better it's propaganda. This president can be a demagogue and even get reelected, like it happens in most Latin American countries. On the other hand, a Monarch is raised since he a was a little kid. He has the knowledge and the capacity to the charge he needs to perform. Second, by not belonging to a party, they are not linked to any political position. Therefore, he can represent equally a socialist and a conservative. Sources: . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... . http://cpi.transparency.org...