What are negative characteristics of a constitutional monarchy?

A constitutional monarchy, according to dictionary. Com, is a "A form of national government in which the power of the monarch (the king or queen) is restrained by a parliament, by law, or by custom..." This means that power once held absolutely by the monarch, as in Medieval Europe, or in Imperial-Era China, is limited and diffused through a governing bureaucracy, headed in many cases by a Prime Minister or the regional equivalent, while the function of the Monarch thereby becomes ceremonial in nature. While the Parliamentary system which replaces absolute monarchical rule does tend to bring a government closer to Democratization, it does have a few glaring drawbacks which show fundamental flaws in such a system: 1) Constitutional Monarchies do not necessarily improve quality of life for the majority of the populace, and in some cases, fail to protect the populace from repressive military regimes.

According to Wikipedia. Org, "In the past, constitutional monarchs have co-existed with fascist and quasi-fascist constitutions (Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain) and with military dictatorships. " While the virtues of Fascism and other totalitarian socio-political and economic systems remain a matter of heated debate in some quarters, yet it is a fact that the previous examples of Fascism in world history, such as Mussolini-Era Italy, were indeed oppressive to a vast majority of their citizenry.

Therefore, to those who seek Democracy over Totalitarianism, Constitutional Monarchy could indeed be viewed as a path to authoritarian rule. 2) Another drawback of Constitutional Monarchy is that, while in theory, the members of Parliament are to vote the will of their constituents, much like American "Representative Democracy", the system yet falls prey to the same flaw that American Representative Democracy does. I cite, for example, the unchecked power of Prime Ministers in Constitutional Monarchies such as England and Canada.

Despite an overwhelming majority of British citizens opposed to that country's entry into the second Gulf War, the Prime Minister, at that time one Tony Blair, held the power to unilaterally enter his country into said war, regardless of the will of the people. And this power, history has show, he indeed exercised. In reference to the flaws of Canadian Constitutional Democracy, a comparison between the American Republic and the Canadian system published on unitednorthamerica.org states, "The Prime Minister used to be described as 'the first among equals' in the cabinet, or as 'a moon among minor stars'.

This is no longer so. He (she) is now incomparably more powerful than any colleague. The Prime Minister chooses the ministers in the first place, and can also ask any of them to resign; if the minister refuses, the Prime Minister can advise the Governor General to remove that minister and the advice would invariably be followed.

Cabinet decisions do not necessarily go by majority vote. A strong prime minister, having listened to everyone's opinion, may simply announce that his (her) view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed. Unless the dissenting ministers are prepared to resign, they must bow to the decision."

Thus, one can see that in a system such as Constitutional Monarchy, much as in a Republic, the opinions of the populace are marginalized by powerful political leaders who rule at their own discretion without accountability to those they supposedly represent. And for these reasons, Constitutional Monarchy may be regarded as a flawed system, inferior to, for example, Direct Democracy, where all citizens rule cooperatively their homeland, and share equally both in the boons and burdens of their nation. Hope my answer helped a bit.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.