Monarchy

Pro: one person decides so decisions made more quickly

less argumentation about policies

Con: no checks & balances

if person has a bad day or goes crazy, the place is in trouble!

Republic:

Pro: have people”do”politics for a living so not all are burdened with it

have intelligent discussions about policies, with various viewpoints represented

Con: not a democracy, so minority viewpoints may be ignored

sometimes slow process, contentious, arguments

Empire:

Pro: large groups affected by policies made, makes it easier to govern huge areas

only a few people need to concern selves about policymaking

Con: minorities easily hurt or even killed off by majority rulers

people not aware of socio-political issues going on

people feel out-of-touch & helpless about their lives

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What are the pros and cons of these types of government???
MONARCHY

REPUBLIC

EMPIRE

what are the pros and cons of these types of government??

a monacrchy is ruled by a king or queen. or both.

a republic is ruled by a president

a empire is ruled by a king and a king only

I’m far from an expert. (Why do people so often say that, then talk about an hour on a subject? I should think you’d figure it out without me telling you! I previewed this answer and it is so000 long, and does not tell all of the pros and cons as you asked for, but that would take a book anyway, I wrote it like this and don’t want to change it, so sue me: here it is.) I think the American system of balance of powers among the executive, judiciary and representative branches is better in theory, but a little cumbersome in practice sometimes. This well-known fact, since our beginnings, has led to routine shortcuts and occasional short-circuits of the system. The long range effect is a stronger and stronger executive branch, and frequent executive actions that, if brought to the limelight, would be perceived as abuses of power whether they are or not. . In Britain, by contrast, the PM is powerful as long as he has a base of support, but is kicked out with little ceremony and legal hassle once his base of support evaporates. If the PM f a r t s around TOO much with scandalous behavior, or engages visibly and persistently in palpable folly or any sort, that’s it. His/her b r a i n f a r t s swiftly blow away his/her base of support. The stink descends on London, but not for long. Soon the ill wind sweeps through Parliament, and there is a vacancy sign in front of the house at 10 Downing St.– but not for long. In contrast, I have heard my British friends criticize the cumbersome way the American system responds to scandals such as Watergate, ending sometimes in Presidential impeachments. The couple from Bristol visiting us in Kansas at about that time told me that the Watergate scandal, had it involved a British prime minister, would have ended with “the government collapsing” at the first hint of scandal– that is, the swift resignation of the PM and a realignment in Parliament, followed rapidly by a new PM, “a new government”. (Britons in the know may confirm or refute this, or improve upon it.) You have to bear in mind that the PM is not elected either by an electoral college nor by popular vote. He is the member of Parliament who is leader of the party in power. He must maintain his broad base of support in Parliament. This involves coalitions, political maneuverings, concessions, etc., the same kind of stuff from which American politicians gain power in Congress. The members of Parliament are accountable to the voters who elect them for how wisely they, in turn, choose a PM, and the public perception of Tony Blair’s or Winston Churchill’s or Margaret Thatcher’s actions redounds to the the benefit, or rebounds to the detriment, of the ladies and gentlemen of parliament— the same way that people blame the parents for the ill-behavior or credit the good behavior of the parents’ sharp-witted or half-witted children. My British friends– I’ll call them Henry and Elizabeth Plantagenet, obviously not their real names, to disguise any inadvertant misquotes— said they preferred the swift dismissal of British governments that had lost the support of too many people because of perceived ill-performance or scandal. That is, they thought that the British system was, in some important ways, more flexible and designed to get governments changed very quickly in the face of lack of support. They said many British people were mystified by the “trench warfare” between Congress and President Nixon during Watergate, firing of attorneys and bureaucrats, giving “leaks”, trashing evidence, staging showy hearings, etc. “Why bother with it?” they asked. “Awfter awl, there was only one way that it could end, Nixon resigning or or being kicked out.” I have to say “right on”– or, perhaps, “right-0”, to that. I think Nixon, on reflection, might have agreed. He was certainly a staunch supporter of our system, nevertheless he said he was resigning after Watergate because he had lost his base of support [key to gaining or maintaining power in the parliamentary system too] and because an extended impeachment trial in the Senate would be very harmful to the country. Nixon, incidentally, gave the same reasons for declining to contest his very narrow defeat by Kennedy in 1960. I think avoidance of needless prolonged political agony in America often depends on the statesmanship of the politicians involved. He said a long legal battle over the election results would be very harmful to the country. Nixon’s statesmanship in these matters is incontestable, and yet in the popular media it took a back seat to his spiteful comment to reporters, “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more.” An unwise comment, but I spent 30 years in the media yet still ponder the injustice that Nixon’s failure to kiss the media’s a s s is considered to have been such a flaw. Tactical blunder I guess, but flaw of character no. Other flaws and ill decisions led to his downfall. Media bias, which might have been a factor in his defeat in 1960, undoubtedly greased the Watergate slide, but I don’t think it did him any lasting harm that he didn’t first do to himself. To intelligent people, do graceful, statesmanlike actions not speak louder than ungracious words? Nixon whined like a baby and Churchill snapped like a bulldog sometimes, the one insulting reporters and the other excoriating ugly old ladies who complained about his public drunkenness. But in America, at least, the media and the public have often seemed to attach too much weight to private unpleasantness, and the British media surely was more restrained and intelligent in these matter before Rupert The Ripper Murdoch homogenized the global media into a clone of “The National Inquirer” (But the gossipy, money-grubbing b a s t a r d eats better than any other journalist I know!) Incidentally, in my opinion, Nixon and Al Gore both showed statesmanship in defeat. Who doubts the ill consequences to the country when and if a narrowly-defeated Presidential candidate decides NOT to bow out, right or wrong– like Nixon in 1960 contest with Kennedy and Gore in the photo finish with Bush? [I’m on a tangent, and, like Nixon during press conferences, might not really be answering the question to the asker’s satisfaction, so I’m gonna quit.)