Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Thailand has been a democracy for a long time and had a constitution for a long time, after evolving from a full monarchy (same process as the UK). It did not evolve to a stable form.
Obviously stable democracies (including Canada) are stable and there isn't much of a reason to mess around with things. But Cliff's assertion was that the stability is a function of being a constitutional monarchy. I don't think that's true. There are unstable versions of the same form.
If you decide they don't count as constitutional monarchies because they're unstable then you're redefining the words. Those countries are all monarchies, and they all have constitutions that specify elections.
|
Thailand hasn't been a democracy for even 100 years. I's constitution has been written and rewritten many times - most recently in 2017. It is hardly in the same category as the regimes listed by Cliff.
We can drill down deeper, but many of us "pro" monarchy types have mentioned culture as an important component to a successful democratic regime.