In this paper

In this paper, we are going to thoroughly discuss about the different roles of a monarch and a president. The reason for choosing this particular topic was that it takes into account the distinctive nature of the Head of States in different parts of the world. Some countries are ruled by the monarch while the others are governed and represented by the President or Republic, whereby elected representatives hold the public offices and possess supreme power over all the others legislative policies, executive powers and judicial functions. An example of which could be United States of America that is ruled by the Presidential system. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia is an example of a country that is ruled by a monarchy. Although, people know that they are different, only a few can tell precisely as to how and why they are different. For that reason, we are going to look into this matter by analyzing the differences through the spheres of power structures, tenure and legislation. We will try to cover every aspect this topic entails and analyze it to the best of our abilities.
Although, a Monarchy and a President are both regarded as forms of government as well as political systems. The two, they generally tend to vary. The first difference one could talk about is the power that they possess in terms of the base and structure. A monarchy is a form of government whereby citizens are ruled by a king, who often claims them to hold absolute power by the Divine Right or in other words the Will of God whereas in a presidential system the government is elected by the general public through the process of voting and fair elections. In countries like, Thailand, for instance, the king is regarded as the Head of State, who is enthroned in a position of reverence, is respected by all and cannot be violated or defied. No one can expose the King to any sort of accusation or other royalties for that matter. On the other hand, Presidents, the chief executive, can be chosen either indirectly by representatives of those elected by the people, or by the people directly. When the president is elected indirectly, then we can call the regime a parliamentary republic. Indirectly elected presidents are selected by an electoral college. For example, in Hungary the president is elected by members of the sole house of parliament, and the National Assembly. The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or committing other higher crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
The second difference, which lies in these particular political systems, is the time period that they last to rule over their subjects. In a monarchy, the crown is hereditary, the concept of divine rule lingers here and the fact that it is passed down from one generation to another, whereas in a presidential system, citizens vote their representatives democratically through free and fair elections. In addition to that, a monarchy allows for a life time rule through the passing of the crown down the family line contrary to a president, where government representatives are allowed to serve for a stipulated duration of time(term) after which elections are held again.
Another difference that lies ahead is that of the legislation. A monarch has the power to make, amend and repeal laws or bills. He might have advisors it is still the King that implements a certain law. However, it is not the same for the president. The president cannot enforce the laws or propose the bills, but he can veto it and prevent its adoption. The power lays with the monarch for instance, in Saudi Arabia, the king drafts out the law and order based on Islamic Shariah, he decides on behalf of the citizen’s but with the president, the power to make laws lies with the senate or the parliament.
Over time, there has been a shift from monarchies to republics and, within republics, from parliamentary republics to semi-presidential and presidential regimes (Elgie, 2012).
The monarchy has lately been a wane, in amidst of it emerged the constitutional monarchy whereby the king or queen sits back and a prime minister runs the affairs of the country. The monarch has to stay neutral in other words they are apolitical. However, it is still a throwback to this era, which means it is seen as an elitist family in a position of privileged success that they did not work to earn. For this matter, we believe that a presidential form of government would help counter all the hassles that reside with the existence of monarchy and absolute power.
The president has been granted certain powers such as negotiating and signing treaties with foreign countries rather foreign diplomats with the consent of the Congress and has the power to veto laws as well. In addition to that, they also have the power to appoint ambassadors, the cabinet and federal judges. For instance, USA’s President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. Other constitutional powers include them to command the military, i.e. to commit troops as the Commander in Chief of all American military forces; the navy, the army, and the airforce.
Along with certain formal powers, the US president has multiple informal powers which in general may lead to his advantage when compared with constitutional monarchy.
USA is a very stable presidential democracy where power is shared at the federal level between the President (the executive body), the Congress (the legislative body) and the Supreme Court (the judicial body).
To conclude, which form of government is better than the other, in my opinion, the presidential system outweighs the monarchical form of government.

In this paper, we will examine the elective parts of a Monarch and a President. The purpose behind picking this specific subject was that it considers the unmistakable idea of the Head of States in different parts of the world. A few nations are managed by the Monarch while the others are represented and regulated by the President or Republic, whereby chose delegates hold general society workplaces and have incomparable control over all the others authoritative arrangements, hold certain official powers and should have control over certain legal capacities. A case of which could be United States of America that is led by the Presidential framework. In actuality, Saudi Arabia is a case of a nation that is administered by a Monarchy. Despite the way that people understand that they are extraordinary and particular, only a couple can explain to exactly with respect to how and why they are unique. Therefore, we will investigate this issue by examining the distinctions through the circles of energy structures, residency and enactment. We will attempt to cover each viewpoint this subject involves and break down it to the best of our capacities.

Despite the fact that, a Monarchy and a President are both viewed as types of government and political frameworks, the two, they generally tend to vary. The main distinction one could discuss is the power that they have as far as the political base and political structure. A government is a type of government whereby nationals are controlled by a lord, who regularly claims to hold outright power by the Divine Right or at the end of the day, the Will of God while in a presidential framework the legislature is chosen by the overall population through the way toward voting and reasonable races. In nations like, Thailand, for example, the lord is viewed as the Head of State, who is enthroned in a place of love, is regarded by all and can’t be damaged or resisted. Nobody can open the King to any kind of allegation or different sovereignties so far as that is concerned. Then again, Presidents, the CEO and the stylized Head of State, can be picked either specifically by the general population or in a roundabout way by agents of those chose by the general population. At the point when the president is chosen in a roundabout way, at that point we can call the administration a parliamentary republic. By implication chose presidents are chosen by a discretionary school. For instance, in Hungary, the President is chosen by individuals from the House of Parliament, and the National Assembly. In any case, the President of the United States or some other nation so far as that is concerned would probably be indicted, trailed by a trial, endless supply of gift, conspiracy or carrying out other higher charged wrongdoings or offenses, could be expelled from the workplace lawfully; and would a short time later face the outcomes and would then be obligated to arraignment and discipline in the common course of law. (Cole, J.P; Garvey, T.)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The second contrast, which lies in these specific political frameworks, is the day and age that they last to run over their subjects. In a Monarchy, the crown is genetic, the idea of Divine Rule that is the illustrious and political authenticity is enunciated here and the way that it is passed down starting with one age then onto the next, while in a Presidential framework, subjects of the nation vote their delegates justly through free and reasonable races. Notwithstanding that, a Monarchy takes into consideration an existence time administer through the death of the crown down the family line in opposition to a President, where government agents are permitted to serve for a stipulated length of time (term) for four to five years after which decisions are held once more. ( Rispa Akello)

Another distinction that lies ahead is that of the enactment. A Monarch has the ability to make, correct and revoke laws or bills. He may have counselors yet it is as yet the King that translates and actualizes a specific lead of law. Be that as it may, it isn’t the same for the President. The President can’t uphold the laws or propose the bills, however he can veto it and keep its appropriation. The power lays with the Monarch for example, in Saudi Arabia, the ruler drafts out the lawfulness in view of Islamic Shariah, he settles for the benefit of the national’s yet with the President, the ability to make laws lies with the Senate or the Parliament.

After some time, there has been a move from governments to republics and, inside republics, from parliamentary republics to semi-presidential and presidential administrations (Elgie, 2012).

One of the principal outstanding structures found by the general population is the association of the human culture. This specific idea includes its establishments inside the Darwinian speculations of the inception and development of the species that moreover typify and epitomizes people and thusly the advancement of the general public also (Claeys, Gregory 2000). The unimportant thought of man being a “social creature” tends to take a gander at the people as animals that are exceptionally ruled by the origination of creature driving forces and wants, while additionally charmed and slanted to make social orders and live amiably. The advancement and the development of these social orders, with all the academic leads also, converges at a conclusive inspiration driving satisfying and fulfilling certain wants, yet at another level.

In the crude day and age, people were thought to be the seeker accumulates or foragers yet when they comprehended and appreciated the surroundings around them they searched out in scan for spots to settle down. As time cruised by, they understood the intricacy and multifaceted nature of the world. That is how the speaking to structure has appeared, however in the game plan of the framework being created which one was more proper for mankind to have? A Monarch or a President?

In light of this, we understand that with the improvement of the general public rose groups regularly related or associated with the Monarchy. In this specific political framework, a solitary ruler is the lord. He manages each one of the endeavors of the country from religion to social request to instruction. The positive part of this is the choices are made quickly since it doesn’t experience the experience of various branches of the organization dissimilar to the presidential framework and the ability to propose laws lies with the single substance. Be that as it may, because of developing hole between the subjects and the rulers and the issue of pride and innate manage, individuals rebelled against the ruler and after that rose the idea of “just” type of government where the President controlled over the all inclusive community. The positive part of this side is that it offers criticalness to “fairness”. It opens ways to break even with open door for work and preparing, training and other social collaborations and participation among the all inclusive community in the general public is esteemed and acknowledged. Be that as it may, because of the foundation of various branches and the partition of forces, the basic leadership process is very moderate in this manner the chances of debasement and contamination are high and conflicts between different divisions emerge.

The Monarchy has recently been on the melt away, in the midst of it rose the protected government whereby the ruler kicks back and a PM or head overseer runs the undertakings of the country. The Monarch needs to remain unbiased at the end of the day they are unopinionated. In any case, it is as yet a return to this time, which infers that it is seen as an elitist family in a place of favored accomplishment and achievement that they didn’t work to get. For this issue, we trust that a presidential type of government would help counter every one of the issues that exist with the presence of the government and outright power.

The President has been conceded sure powers, for example, arranging and marking arrangements with outside nations rather remote representatives with the assent of the Congress and has the ability to veto laws also. Notwithstanding that, they likewise have the ability to choose envoys, the bureau and government judges. For example, USA’s President George H.W. Shrubbery named Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. Other established forces incorporate them to order the military, i.e. to submit troops as the Commander in Chief of all American military powers; the maritime power, the armed force, and the flying corps.

Close by certain formal powers, the US president has various casual forces, powers which are not regularly identified in the Constitution, which all around, as a rule may prompt his favorable position when contrasted and protected government. The President has the capacity or rather the upside of passing and doing official requests, makes official assentions or at the end of the day has an official benefit, plans and devises motivation, conveys troops to ensure the national interests without the announcement of war, as an emergency administrator, and has an entrance to media or spook lectern.

To finish up, which kind of government is superior to the next, as I would like to think, the presidential framework exceeds the monarchical type of government. Diverse nations aim into various types of administration in view of their political qualities which are also in light of certain popularity based grounds in order to acquire national security, peace and thriving inside a country. For example, USA is a particularly stable Presidential majority rule government where control is shared at the elected level between the President (the official body), the Congress (the administrative body) and the Supreme Court (the legal body).

In this paper, we are going to thoroughly discuss about the alternative roles of a Monarch and a President. The reason for choosing this particular topic was that it takes into account the distinctive nature of the Head of States in various parts of the world. Some countries are ruled by the Monarch while the others are governed and administered by the President or Republic, whereby elected representatives hold the public offices and possess supreme power over all the others legislative policies, hold certain executive powers and might as well have control over certain judicial functions. An example of which could be United States of America that is ruled by the Presidential system. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia is an example of a country that is ruled by a Monarchy. In spite of the fact that individuals realize that they are different and distinctive, just a couple can tell precisely as to how and why they are different. For that reason, we are going to look into this matter by analyzing the differences through the spheres of power structures, tenure and legislation. We will try to cover every aspect this topic entails and analyze it to the best of our abilities.
Although, a Monarchy and a President are both regarded as forms of government as well as political systems, the two, they for the most part have a tendency to differ. The first difference one could talk about is the power that they possess in terms of the political base and political structure. A monarchy is a form of government whereby citizens are ruled by a king, who often claims to hold absolute power by the Divine Right or in other words, the Will of God whereas in a presidential system the government is elected by the general public through the process of voting and fair elections. In countries like, Thailand, for instance, the king is regarded as the Head of State, who is enthroned in a position of reverence, is respected by all and cannot be violated or defied. No one can expose the King to any sort of accusation or other royalties for that matter. On the other hand, Presidents, the chief executive and the ceremonial Head of State, can be chosen either directly by the people or indirectly by representatives of those elected by the people. When the president is elected indirectly, then we can call the regime a parliamentary republic. Indirectly elected presidents are selected by an electoral college. For example, in Hungary, the President is elected by members of the House of Parliament, and the National Assembly. However, the President of the United States or any other country for that matter would be likely to be impeached, followed by a trial, and, upon conviction of bribery, treason or committing other higher alleged crimes or misdemeanors, could be removed from the office legally; and would afterwards face the consequences and would then be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. (Cole, J.P; Garvey, T.)
The second difference, which lies in these particular political systems, is the time period that they last to rule over their subjects. In a Monarchy, the crown is hereditary, the concept of Divine Rule that is the royal and political legitimacy is articulated here and the fact that it is passed down from one generation to another, whereas in a Presidential system, citizens of the country vote their representatives democratically through free and fair elections. In addition to that, a Monarchy allows for a life time rule through the passing of the crown down the family line contrary to a President, where government representatives are allowed to serve for a stipulated duration of time (term) for four to five years after which elections are held again. ( Rispa Akello)
Another difference that lies ahead is that of the legislation. A Monarch has the power to make, amend and repeal laws or bills. He might have advisors but it is still the King that interprets and implements a certain rule of law. However, it is not the same for the President. The President cannot enforce the laws or propose the bills, but he can veto it and prevent its adoption. The power lays with the Monarch for instance, in Saudi Arabia, the king drafts out the law and order based on Islamic Shariah, he decides on behalf of the citizen’s but with the President, the power to make laws lies with the Senate or the Parliament.
Over time, there has been a shift from monarchies to republics and, within republics, from parliamentary republics to semi-presidential and presidential regimes (Elgie, 2012).
One of the foremost exceptional frameworks found by the people is the organization of the human society. This particular notion has its foundations within the Darwinian hypotheses of the origin and evolution of the species that likewise embody and encapsulates individuals and along these lines the evolution of the society as well (Claeys, Gregory 2000). The mere idea of man being a “social animal” tends to look at the humans as creatures that are highly dominated by the conception of animal impulses and desires, while also intrigued and inclined to create societies and live sociably. The development and the evolution of these societies, with all the scholarly conducts as well, merges at a definitive motivation behind fulfilling and satisfying certain desires, albeit at another level.
In the primitive time period, humans were considered to be the hunter gathers or scavengers but as soon as they understood and comprehended the surroundings around them they sought out in search for places to settle down. As time passed by, they realized the complexity and multifaceted nature of the world. That is how the representing framework has come into existence, however in the arrangement of the system being produced which one was more appropriate for humanity to have? A Monarch or a President?
With this in mind, we realize that with the development of the society rose factions often associated or connected with the Monarchy. In this particular political system, a single ruler is the king. He deals with every one of the undertakings of the nation from religion to social order to education. The positive aspect of this is that the decisions are made swiftly since it does not go through the experience of different branches of the administration unlike the presidential system and the power to propose laws lies with the single entity. However, due to growing gap between the subjects and the rulers and the issue of pride and hereditary rule, people revolted against the monarch and then emerged the concept of “democratic” form of government where the President ruled over the general population. The positive aspect of this side is that it gives significance to “equality”. It opens doors to equal opportunity for work and training, education and other social interactions and cooperation amongst the general population in the society is valued and appreciated. However, due to the establishment of different branches and the separation of powers, the decision making process is quite slow therefore the odds of corruption and defilement are high and clashes between various departments arise.
The Monarchy has lately been on the wane, in amidst of it emerged the constitutional monarchy whereby the ruler sits back and a prime minister or head administrator runs the affairs of the nation. The Monarch has to stay neutral in other words they are apolitical. However, it is still a throwback to this era, which implies that it is viewed as an elitist family in a position of privileged achievement and success that they did not work to procure. For this matter, we believe that a presidential form of government would help counter all the problems that exist with the existence of the monarchy and absolute power.
The President has been granted certain powers such as negotiating and signing treaties with foreign countries rather foreign diplomats with the consent of the Congress and has the power to veto laws as well. In addition to that, they also have the power to appoint ambassadors, the cabinet and federal judges. For instance, USA’s President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. Other constitutional powers include them to command the military, i.e. to commit troops as the Commander in Chief of all American military forces; the naval force, the army, and the air force.
Alongside certain formal powers, the US president has multiple informal powers, powers which are not often enumerated in the Constitution, which by and large, in general may lead to his advantage when compared with constitutional monarchy. The President has the ability or rather the advantage of passing and carrying out official executive orders, makes executive agreements or in other words has an executive privilege, plans and devises agendas, sends out troops to protect the national interests without the declaration of war, as a crisis manager, and has an access to media or bully pulpit.
To conclude, which type of government is better than the other, in my opinion, the presidential system outweighs the monarchical form of government. Different countries aspire into different forms of governance based on their political values which are additionally in light of certain democratic grounds so as to obtain national security, peace and prosperity within a nation. For instance, USA is an exceptionally stable Presidential democracy where power is shared at the federal level between the President (the executive body), the Congress (the legislative body) and the Supreme Court (the judicial body).

x

Hi!
I'm Belinda!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out