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.