Gran Mani Republicana 14-04-2022 en todas las plazas y calles del territorio.
Nuevas consignas reivindicativas republicanas > Escucha el AUDIO, y suma tu voz: ¡Nos van a oír!
¡Marea Tricolor! ¡No faltéis!
¡Comparte en tus RRSS! y, ¡Pásalo!
#ReferendumMonarquía #RepublicaFederalEspañola #RoyalCrownDown
#BorbonesSonLadrones #ReferéndumYa #AdiósBorbonia
The Bourbon family at Marivent Palace, Mallorca, on theirs hollidays in the summer of 2007.
How much costs Spanish Monarchy? Some reflections
In most of the riots protesting for the social cuts, we constantly see republican flags. The feeling of the population shows that constant cuts in social spending, in areas like health, education and others, which generate so much suffering in the population, are not compatible with the uncontrolled spending produced by the royal family. Feelings which link to our desire for a more mature and more real democracy.
In fact, these are the two most powerful reasons which citizenship uses as arguments for the end of the monarchy: its high cost, and the democratic deficit which involves this system.
Let’s start with the cost. According to Amadeo Martinez Inglés, http://www.unidadcivicaporlarepublica.es/index.php/monarquia/las-cuentas-del-rey/3333-561654350-euros-coste-real-de-la-monarquia-espanola, monarchy costs a total of 561 654 350 Euros. A higher quantity than the official one. This high cost can be legal, but it is absolutely immoral. Because that money comes from the taxes, belongs to taxpayer. All of us pay our taxes, which are increasingly high, indeed. Therefore, it is inadmissible that so much money is intended to the waste of a family, whose only merit is being Borbon, being made inherit by Franco´s dictatorship.
Monarchy officially costs around 8 million Euros per year, but unofficially it costs much more. Besides the official cost, different ministries have to pay some expenses. Defense pays for security, Foreign pays some travels, and the same happens with other charges. All these evidences are the ones that create outrage within population, which demands changes. On one hand these people ask for royal family being included in the so-called “transparency law”. On the other hand they ask for a democratic process carrying a Republican state.
Due to the current wave of cuts that citizens are suffering, support a family which only spends money, is disgraceful, immoral and unacceptable. How can the chief of state spend money, and at the same time realize the suffering of the population? It is lawful? In my view, like that of the thousands of Republican voices, the answer is a resounding no.
The second reason that we have put forward for the end of the monarchy is the democratic deficit inherent to this state model. It is true that republican system is not always the same as democracy (examples like Nazism, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, or Stalinism, give us proof of this). But monarchy always means inequality. And the monarchy is a problem to consolidate a modern and democratic state, even within the so- called “parliamentary monarchy”. Moreover, in Spain, where the current chief of state, the king, was designed by a dictator, Franco, and he has lived in the shadow of a metanarrative of transition which named him as a democratic person. But this metanarrative is not valid for the new Spanish generation, which asks for answers, breaking the agreement made during the transition. There is a generation gap.
Now we just need this population republican feeling expressed in demands for betterment of society, being expressed as a political proposal. A proposal for a republican state.
Sara Orellán
@saraorellan
http://tribunaretorno.blogspot.com.es/
Protests against the Spain monarchy and against government cuts, during the annual awards ceremony of the Prince of Asturias, Oviedo, Spain, October 2012.
Abolished Monarchies in Europe:
European Monarchies currently questioned:
Headlines:
«Referendum on monarchy in Italy,1946”
Luciano Casali / Roberta Mira – University of Bolonia, Italy.
«Referendum on monarchy in Greece, 1974«
George Georgakopoulos/Journalist of «Kathimerini» Atenian newspaper.
«Ten Reasons to overthrow the Spanish monarchy» S. Vázquez Covelo – Republican activist.
Analysis:
“Felipe V to Felipe VI: The Catalonia people’s struggle»
Francesc Xavier Hernández / Historian. University of Barcelona.
No one had spoken openly in Spain about the Monarchy Referendums in Greece and Italy … until now!
Read it, comment it, and share it!
«Italy, 2nd June 1946: The Birth of a Republic»
By Luciano Casali and Roberta Mira. Bolonia University – Italy
On 2nd June 1946, Italians were called to choose the form of State that Italy should have after the end of Second World War. The institutional referendum opposed republic, something new for the Italian state, and monarchy, which had governed since 1861, when the Italian Peninsula was unified under the power of the Royal House: the Savoy.
More of the 89% of citizens voted, women included (after the Second World War they gained the right to vote), and the referendum resulted in the victory of the republic with 12,718,614 votes (54.3%) for it and 10,718,502 (45.7%) for monarchy.
Voting statistics by region
In order to understand how that result was achieved, we need to have a quick look at the previous Italian history, focusing on the period that goes between 1943 and 1946.
Italy, which participated in June 1940 in the Second World War with Nazi Germany and which was guided by Benito Mussolini, fascism’s Duce, was governed in October 1922 by King Victor Emanuel III.
Although the fascist regime entirely changed the Albertine Statute (named after King Charles Albert, it was the Italian Constitution in force from 4th March 1848) to obtain a strong supremacy on other State’s powers in order to build a dictatorship, it didn’t erase the monarchy. Being it that way, the king still was the Head of State. When the conflict started to go against Germany and its allies’ interests, Victor Emanuel III, who had always supported fascism and its military conquests (which had gave him the Emperor title), tried to dissociate Italy from the fascist regime.
On 25th July 1943, taking advantage of the Grand Council of Fascism’s sentence against Mussolini to carry out his duty guaranteed by the Albertine Statute, the king gave the order to arrest the Duce and put in his place the government’s guide General Badoglio.
Ballot
During the next months, the monarchy got in touch with Great Britain and the United States, as their military forces occupied Sicily since July 1943, to ask for a separated truce. Negotiations finally resulted in the armistice of 3rd September, although Italians just knew about it on 8th September.
The armistice caused Germany’s reaction, although it was ready long time ago to Italy’s abandonment before the conflict. The Germans military occupied a part of the south of the country and practically all the center and north, and they took a great number of soldiers from the Italian army, who didn’t have by that time any kind of orders from the king or Badoglio (they finally ran away from Rome to the south, with the Anglo-American army). The Germans freed Mussolini and gave him the chance of creating a new fascist government, the Italian Social Republic, with jurisdiction over the center and north of the country.
Until the spring of 1945, Italy lived in a situation of administrative and politic division, with a center-north in which governed the Nazis and the Italian Social Republic, and a center-south in hands of the monarchy and under control of the allied powers. While in the center-north there were fights against the Nazi and fascist forces, the Partisan Movement of Italy was created and the war continued until 1945, in the center-south, where all the territories were free and out of the conflict, the antifascist partisans and the Italian government started in 1944 the transition from fascism to a new free Italy. Leaving apart, for reasons of space, the Italian Resistenza and its movements (even though they are vital for the post-war period development of Italian history), we go into details of the situation of the freed Italian territory in order to follow the steps that led to the referendum on 2nd June 1946.
Map of Italy: Republican areas and Monarchics areas in 1946.
After the armistice, the institutional issue was very complicated for antifascist political parties, as they had to recover their figure after the fall of fascism and their position towards the south of Italy, the allies and their fight against fascists and Nazis. The Socialist Party, the Action Party, the Communist Party, the Liberal Party, the Christian Democracy Party and the Labour Democratic Party, which represented the National Liberation Committee, didn’t agree on the projects of the future Italy to build. Basically, two parts were confronted: on the one hand, communists, actionists and socialists pointed to a deep renovation of political, social and economic structures of the country; on the other hand, the rest of the political parties proposed a more moderated or clearly conservative position. Despite those differences, the representatives of the National Liberation Committee demanded the abdication of the king and the creation of a government that expressed antifascism. Regarding the form of the state, political representatives were willing to wait until the end of the war and initiate a popular referendum in order to get the last decision, but at the same time, they weren’t willing to maintain the government with Victor Emanuel III. Given that Great Britain and the United States supported General Badoglio and the monarchy, we can see that Italy found itself on a dead end.
During the months of March and April 1944, a succession of factors completely cleared the situation. General Badoglio’s government got the official recognition of the Soviet Union, desiring not to leave the decision in hands of the United States and Great Britain. This recognition was followed by a memorandum of the Soviet Foreign Minister, who highlighted the importance of a cooperation between the Italian government and the antifascist parties for the sake of the struggles against Nazis. And also, by doing this he forced Great Britain and the United States to open to Italian antifascists.
Victor Manuel III of Savoy
The Italian communist leader Palmiro Togliatti, who was coming back from Moscow, marked a turning point in the politics of the Italian Communist Party and the antifascist formation. Communists considered the compromise with other parties in the fight against Nazi occupation and fascism very important, and they agreed to support the monarchy and the south’s government until the final victory, and they postponed the solution of the institutional issue of the country. Finally, the king gave in to pressures of some liberal characters and of the Anglo-Americans in order to find a compromise in which abdication, rejected by Victor Emanuel III, wasn’t planed. So, the king abdicated in exchange of appointing his son Umberto as Lieutenant General of the Realm after Rome was taken by the allies powers and retiring to his private life.
Before such events, by the end of 1944, a government of national antifascist unity was created and, for the first time since the overthrow of Mussolini, could see the participation of all the exponents of antifascist parties. The Head of State still was General Pietro Badoglio, supported by British and Americans as a guarantee of the armistice. But the institutional issue wouldn’t be brought up until the end of the conflict, with the approval of the National Liberation Committee and the Liberation Committee of Milan, where the headquarters of the Partisan Movement in the center-north of Italy were found.
A first solution of the problem came with the Legislative Decree of the Lieutenant of the Realm no. 151 of 25th June 1944, started by the government that took charge after Rome’s liberation, still formed by antifascist parties. However, this time they weren’t guided by General Badoglio but by the moderated Ivanoe Bonomi, representative of Italian prefascist parties and, up until then, president of the National Liberation Committee. According to the legislative decree, by the end of the war the Italian people should choose the institutional form, not through a direct referendum in which the people could be for monarchy of republic, but through a Constituent Assembly that would gather by the middle of 1946 and should write the new Italian Constitution and choose the state’s form.
Umberto II of Savoy
The referendum’s idea was clearly supported by Lieutenant Humbert of Savoy, the Anglo-Americans, the Liberal Party and the Christian Democracy Party. They feared that a Constituent Assembly chosen after Second World War could taka a strongly republican connotation caused by the presence of left-winged parties (communists, socialists and the Action Party). Those who supported a popular referendum and a postponement of elections didn’t all have in mind saving the monarchy, but they were all worried because of the progressive character that a left-winged Constituent Assembly could give to the new Italian state. By postponing the first political elections of Italian post-war period, anxieties of renovation and tension atmosphere after the conflict could be erased, and the basis of the future organization of the country could remain.
After the complete liberation of the Italian Peninsula from German and fascist occupation and after the end of the conflict, new political orientations strongly emerged.
After Ivanoe Bonomi, the government was still formed by representatives of all (or almost all) the antifascist parties, but it was a weak government, victim of the growing confrontation between left-winged parties and the moderate powers, which were influenced by the Vatican and Anglo-American representatives, who put on pressure in order to guide the political Italian future against communism. The experience of Ferruccio Parri’s government, ancient leader of the Italian Resistenza, was emblematic.
Even though they weren’t sure about the success of a referendum in a country that not long ago was dominated by fascism, that had also enjoyed from the Italians’ consent, the parties that supported republic accepted the introduction of the referendum in order to avoid the indefinitely postponement of elections.
The Communist Party, the Socialist Party and the Action Party requested that elections for the Constituent Assembly and the referendum would take place the same day. The Legislative Decree of the Lieutenant of the Realm no. 98 of 16th March 1946, started by the government of the Christian democrat Alcide de Gasperi, guaranteed the decision of putting the election between monarchy and republic to a referendum. So, the Legislative Decree no. 99 of 16th March 1946 proclaimed the referendum and Constituent Assembly’s elections for 2nd June 1946.
The Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the Action Party and the Republican Party openly declared themselves republicans. Republic was also supported by some liberal representatives and almost all the leaders of the Christian Democracy Party, but their position wasn’t shown for a long time since most of Catholic electors had a close attitude towards monarchy. They decided to relate the institutional fate of Italy to Catholic religion. Church was first interested in protecting the moral and the returning of the values of Christian life, in which Italians were recognised because of their culture, tradition and character. Although this party openly showed a neutral position on the institutional issue, it actually acted in favour of monarchy.
Monarchy supporters trusted the Savoy House, as they could guarantee the Catholic cultural roots of Italy and the national unity conquered by the Resurgence, a unit that should be safeguarded against the many social, economic and cultural differences of the Italian territory.
It was very clear that the ones who considered themselves in favour of monarchy controlled all the renovation projects that socialist and communists wanted to develop. Leaflets for monarchy demonstrated the danger that social changes could cause: a social-communist dictatorship, the destruction of social and public order and a civil war.
For the other hand, republic supporters highlighted the mistakes of the Savoy House from the moment they affirmed fascism power: having given the government to Mussolini in 1922, having approved the coming back to dictatorship in 1925 after the murder of socialist Giacomo Matteotti (ordered by the Duce), having supported fascist colonialism and war in the Nazi’s side, the defeat of Italian army when it was abandoned without orders on 8th September 1943 and their betrayal when they run away from Rome, an act that allowed the military occupation by Germany and many terrible consequences for the Italian people. The republican choice should have prevented Italy from falling again into the past, it should have fought the risks that allowed the coming to power of a dictator.
Referendum News
The combination of referendum and elections for the Constituent Assembly put the electoral campaign on top of the referendum about monarchy, and it seemed that the first one prevailed over the second one because, for the one hand, the parties for republic needed to distinguish between themselves in the electoral programs before elections. For the other hand, during the campaign for 2nd June divisions between moderates and conservatives (headed by the Christian Democracy Party) and left-winged progressives started to show.
Victor Emanuel III, in his last attempt of saving the Savoy dynasty and the monarchy, not respecting the ‘institutional truce’, abdicated the throne in his son a few weeks before elections. His son, who was Lieutenant General of the Realm, became King Humbert II. The success of the referendum ended with the victory of the republic and the exile of the new king and his family.
Republic wasn’t supported by a large majority. Southern and center Italy expressed their wishes for monarchy. Due to the short time in which the country passed from Nazi occupation to liberation thanks to Anglo-American allies, in the south of the country the Partisan Movement didn’t develop as much as in the north, despite the presence of armed opposition against the Germans, like the episodes that took place in Naples and Campania. This is the reason why southern Italians weren’t that familiarised with Resistenza movements.
To all this we have to add the traditional and symbolic feeling of monarchy, which was also strengthen by the Allies, who used it as a transition route to postfascism and social order maintenance. We shouldn’t forget that monarchy also received the support of the political movement Front of the Ordinary Man, which was very conservative and extended in the south and between mafias. There were exceptions in some southern areas between 1943 and 1946, where farmers, tired of working in landowners’ lands in very poor conditions, voted for republic. In some areas in northern Italy there were high percentages for monarchy, where the tradition of the Savoy was very strong. The fear to change and the uncertain future that republic carried itself were the reasons why monarchy didn’t win by few votes. This vote for monarchy was specially expressed by some public sectors, professional fields, landowners and Catholics who followed Vatican’s demands. In other words, by those who feared that rupture with ancient traditions could give way to a loss in social status and values.
However, the republic, headed by left-winged parties, received the favour of those who condemned fascism and the monarchy that had supported it, and who expected a radical overcoming of the past. Regarding this, the republican choice was due to the Resistenza period, the breaking-off with the past and the change that led to the Italian outlook.
Republic’s victory wasn’t a deep change backed by its supporters. Actually, there were many continuity routes which gathered the experience of the different aspects of Italy: republican, liberal and fascist, even though the results of Resistenza and the referendum and the most advanced aspects of the Constitution, in force from 1948.
While there were still some unsolved problems from the fascist past, national and international political contrasts and the growing contrast between the western and the eastern blocks determined a moderate change, in comparison with expectations that rose during the Partisan Movement; a change that should have marked the Italian political life for the next decades.
«Athinaiki» newspaper says: All Greece burns with the cry «The end of Glücksburg – at last!»
«Greece, 8th of December, 1974»
George Georgakopoulos, journalist.
Kathimerini English Edition
My name is George Georgakopoulos, I am the business editor at the English Edition of Kathimerini newspaper in Athens and I will try to explain the occurrence of the referendum of the monarchy in Greece in 1974.
The question is who voted in the referendum and why the Greeks voted against the monarchy.
The poster says: «The crown to trash!»
I was born just one month before the referendum, but I know full well that my parents voted for it, just like more than three quarters of Greeks.
The result was overwhelmingly in favor of ousting the royal family, and there are several reasons for it.
First, the country was just emerging from a seven-year-long dictatorship that at first had been seen to have the blessing of the palace, in 1967, although it was later illustrated that that had not been the case.
![QUEEN FEDERIKA[1]](https://destinorepublicano.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/queen-federika1.jpg)
Federica, in the early years of her reign
In fact, later that year Constantine II tried to overturn the military junta, but failed and was expelled by the dictators.
However the people had associated the royal family, and particularly Frideriki (Frederica), the mother of Constantine II and Queen Sofia of Spain, with behind-the-scenes machinations that often torpedoed the smooth operation of the elected governments in Athens in previous decades and served to steer the country’s politics to the direction of her own wishes.
The fact that she was not Greek made many people angry about her conduct, although she did have sworn fans, too. It therefore seems that in the referendum Constantine II did not only pay for his own conduct in the past, but also for his family’s sins, too.
Federica and Pablo
Another reason is that in 1974 royalty was increasingly seen as a thing of the past. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of young people voted against it, and the 30% share of the vote it got was partly from the nostalgia of older people in Greece.
Most Greeks wanted a break with the past that had only caused them pain.
Members of the Greek military junta
Finally, the result was also shaped by the fast that almost all major parties, including ruling right-wing New Democracy of Prime Minister Constantinos Karamanlis, were in favor of Greece becoming a republic.
Karamanlis, the most influential Greek of the latter half of the 20th century, had served as a Prime Minister under a king for eight years, from 1955 to 1963, and firmly believed that the republic was essential for the promotion and establishment of the democratic institutions in this country.
The poster says: «No to foreign interests submissive monarchy»
The result served to heal some of the wounds opened not only by the military junta but also from the National Split that had dated since the mid-1910s in Greece, no less than six decades.
Had the king stayed on, that would have taken even longer.
«The Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg dynasty in Greece“
By Francesc Xavier Hernàndez Cardona. Historian. Professor at Universidad de Barcelona
The Peace Assembly and the Toluges Truce, called by Catalan bishop Oliva in 1033, initiated a special political dialogue process in the Catalonian counties that would made possible different political views. The Counts of Barcelona agreed to govern in a Cortes system with laws or ‘constitutions’ approved by consensus and with representatives of the nobility, the cities and the Church. As the time passed by, the number of constitutions restricting the power of counts and kings in Aragon was increasing, and led to an early constitutional political system that said that the king should respect and comply with the Cortes’ laws. Thanks to the increasing constitutions, the Catalonian Government was able to avoid the power voracity of the monarchs between the 16th and 17th centuries. During that period, the Catalonian strong identity feeling was based on the rights and duties according to the law, like it would later happen in the liberal revolutions; in other words, its basis was political rather than cultural: a Catalan was someone enjoying the freedoms provided by the constitutions. But when in 1700 the Habsburg King Charles II died without issue, the new King Philip V made things more difficult, leading to the first great European war.
The War of the Spanish Succession was a terrible confrontation between two concepts about the future of Europe and the world. Louis XVI of France and his grandson, Philip the Duke of Anjou (who would later be Philip V of Spain and I of Aragon), had their minds very clear: they wanted a global totalitarian dictatorship with which they could erase any constitutional desire. From 1700 on, Louis XIV, who had France, the Spanish kingdoms and the respective colonies in his hands, cherished the universal monarchy. But there was an opposition against this desire of the constitutional powers for democracy and industry: England, Holland and the benevolent monarchy of Austria, which was respectful with the freedoms of its people. This progress suggested that the Archduke Charles, Charles III, could take charge of the Spanish kingdoms and states. Charles counted with lots of supporters in Castile and Aragon and with the enthusiastic support of Catalonia, the small country that had the leadership regarding experience and constitutional development for democracy and industry. The survival of the Catalan constitutional state depended on the success of the allied forces. Catalans, Aragoneses, Valencians, Majorcans and many Castilians fought determinedly against the absolutist atrocity. Sigue leyendo
Juan Carlos Borbón and Francisco Franco, 1973.
SARA HIDALGO GARCÍA
PhD Candidate at the University of the Basque Country
Good afternoon, my name is Sara Hidalgo. I am a PHD candidate at the University of the Basque Country. I am doing a research about working class movement in some industrial areas of the Basque Country from the beginning of the XXth century to the II Republic period.
First of all I would like to thank the organization of this event for inviting me to give this speech. I am going to speak about the relationship between the Spanish monarchy and Franco dictatorship. I would like to note that I am not going to speak about the repression and the lack of democracy happened during the dictatorship, even if they happened. However, I´m going to analyze the different laws that allowed Prince Juan Carlos become King of Spain. Sigue leyendo
15M LONDON and OCCUPY LONDON
Invites you
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
23TH JUNE 2012 – 17:00
“SPAIN AND THE MONARCHY”
St. Paul Cathedral Square – London
Speakers:
·Mrs. Sara Hidalgo García – Contemporary History Researcher,
Country Basque University.
·Mr. Ruben García Pedraza – Graduated in Science of Education,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, specialty in History of Education.
Mr. Steve Freeman – From «Republican Socialists» (UK)
_____
Spain: Why we ask for a Monarchy Referendum?
Did you know that the current Spanish Monarchy
was imposed by the fascist dictator Francisco Franco in 1975?
There is a possibility of Juan Carlos de Borbon abdicating,
in favour of his son Felipe, who would reign as Felipe VI.
Many Spanish people demand a democratic free Referendum
so we can decide on our state model:
a Monarchy or Spanish Federal Republic.
We must leave behind Franco’s shadow heritage!
We want to discuss and debate this!
Neither altar nor throne: Another Spain is possible!
The Spanish Republic – Steve Freeman
The Spanish and English republican flags
Speech by Steve Freeman from Occupy London’s Real Democracy Working Group to the meeting held on 23 June 2012 outside St Pauls Cathedral, London, on the sight formerly held by the Occupy London camp.
“I think it is very important to remember that many people from this country went with the International Brigades to fight for the Spanish republic. And they would have seen this flag [pointing to the red, yellow and purple tricolor] in Spain themselves when they were part of that struggle.
So it is fantastic that that flag should today come back here, because there is a real historical connection between the people of England and the people of Spain. And that [pointing to the red, yellow and purple tricolor] is a big reminder of that historic connection.
And another way we have that connection is of course the 15M movement in Spain, the Occupy movement in Spain, of course, was great inspiration, spreading over to America [Occupy Wall Street] and to the Occupy movement that we have been involved in here in this country.
So it is really good that we in the Real Democracy Group have been able to make a contact with our Spanish friends and comrades, as it were, to be able to have them here to speak to us today and to remake that link.
Because republicanism is essentially about people governing themselves – it is about the power of the people. It means we do not believe in bureaucrats, in monarchies, in armed forces, in politicians ruling us. We believe in the rule of the people – that is the essence of republicanism.
And even though this [Spanish] republic was defeated and crushed, it is inevitable that when the people of Spain begin to struggle again, begin to search for democracy again, they will find their way back to their history and the struggles that have affected them in the past, bringing that history back.
The flag here of course [pointing to the red, violet and green tricolor] also connects with our history. Some of us have been promoting this idea of a flag that connects together our own democratic history – the history of the Levellers (Green -1648-9] who fought for a republic in English civil war – the Chartists [red and green] who [in the 19th century] fought for the right for people in this country, working class people, to have the vote – and the Suffragettes who fought in this country for the right for women to have the vote.
And that is part of our democratic tradition. So it is fantastic that we should see these two flags [Spanish and English republican flags] together, and that [pointing to the Spanish republican flag] really means such a lot for the people in this country who fought in Spain in the 1930s.
Thank you very much”
Steve Freeman.
London, June 23th, 2012.
http://www.republicansocialists.org.uk/
MONARCHIES, REPUBLICS AND DEMOCRACY
By Miguel Ángel Presno Linera
Law Professor at the Universidad de Oviedo, Spain.
Abstract:
In this text, professor Presno Linera makes an overview about the different kinds of governments, both in a republican system and in a monarchy. Professor Presno stresses the idea that republic and democracy not always go together. Thus, there are lot of European states, like Great Britain, Netherlands, or Spain, as example, that have a monarchy but they are democracies. First, Professor Presno explains the different types of monarchies have been in Spain since the liberal revolutions in the 19th century to the actual Spanish constitution. Secondly he makes an explanation on the different types of republics, in this case looking to the American republics and some of the Europeans.
Introduction
Throughout history, monarchical and republican systems have followed one another in different states and have experienced different changes throughout centuries. As is well known, a simple way to differentiate between Monarchy and Republic is that in a monarchy the position of the Head of State is hereditary and held for life; whereas in a republic, the Head of State is elected, either by the citizens or by other constitutional bodies, and its position is time-limited.
According to these premises, a priori, a republic seems to be more democratic than a monarchy, since in that system, most people could hold the position of Head of State (although normally with some restrictions as being of legal age or born in the country), this position would be temporary and its appointment would depend on an election of some kind. This is true; however, democracy can have some gradations and still be a democracy. To sum up, there are lots of states, such as Great Britain, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain, in which the monarchy does not stop them from being democratic, since in essence, a democracy involves its citizens effectively taking part in the election of the government of public affairs, but it does not really imply them to choose every state organ. Members of the judiciary (judges and other court constituents) are not usually elected directly in Europe; however, their source of legitimacy is democratic, since they apply rules, such as the Constitution and the applicable law, that have to be approve, directly or indirectly, by the citizens. Sigue leyendo
Destino Republicano - Republican Fate 