There is overwhelming evidence that constitutional monarchies outperform republics on most worthwhile criteria. And in 1940, every country still fighting the Nazis was a constitutional monarchy. Every one of them. That says something about constitutional monarchies, doesn’t it? ( I'll explain the relevance of that below.)
I have been arguing this from before the 1999 referendum, relying in particular on the Human Development Index of the United Nations.
This began when I was asked to debate a republican at an inner-city branch of the Liberal Party.
In the course of the debate, I stated that the evidence was that constitutional monarchies tended to perform better than republics, and were among the world's most civilized countries. This was greeted by howls of derision.
I then began to recite, from memory, the world's constitutional monarchies. Silence descended.
One of my interests is international law where I quite often needed to refer to the UN Human Index as a background on various countries. I decided to extract information from the index to be used in future arguments. In fact the index is a treasure trove for constitutional monarchists and a nightmare for republicans.
It demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that constitutional monarchies have a far better track record than republics.
The UN HDI assess countries according to health, wealth, and education. Constitutional monarchies always come out on top.
We have to remember of course that constitutional monarchies make up only approximately 15% of the countries in the world. So more than 15% of the top countries are constitutional monarchies, it is elementary that they are over-represented. They are performing better than republics.
If this is done over a whole range of indices and over time, it is reasonable to assume that this is not just a mere
correlation but evidence of better performance.
….UN HDI "ridiculed by most economists" – claims ARM …
It is understandable that the Republican movement would be unhappy with these self evident facts. In recent times the Republican movement has been trying to undermine these conclusions.
This is being done by a contributor to that republican site run the ARM media director and vice-chair.
The contributor's confidence in his conclusions is such that he hides behind a pseudonym.
One such conclusion is that the UN HDI is "..ridiculed by most economists".
To justify this all they offer is a link to Wikipedia, which merely says that some economists and others for various specific reasons criticise the index, for example, that it lacks a reference to ecological considerations.
In fact, most economists and those involved in international firms international affairs find that the UN HDI extremely useful. It is highly regarded in international legal circles.
… Global peace index…
In a desperate attempt to find just one set of statistics which we will weaken the very clear conclusion that constitutional monarchiess performd better than republics, the ARM has been on the lookout for some index, somewhere which supports this.
They think they have it in the Global Peace Index.
You see, under this index 60% of the top five countries are constitutional monarchies. That is, constitutional monarchies are disproportionately represented in the top five by a factor of four.
50% of the top 10 and 45% of the top 20 are also constitutional monarchies. In other words they are again over represented, this time by a factor of three.
The ARM explains this by saying that most of these are European. But I'm quite used to the ARM using race in their arguments – they have named me on their site as a “perma- tanned Indonesian born blow–in".
But if they thought about this for a moment they would realise that most of the top countries in these indexes are European.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that constitutional monarchies perform better than republics.
…Note on the Global Peace Index..
[ Continued below ]
The Global Peace index is composed of 23 criteria relating to both internal peace and external peace. The external peace criteria relate to such matters as the number of people in the armed services, the number of conflicts fought and so on.
The result is that those countries which are good international citizens – those who fight for the freedom of others rather than talking about it don't do too well, such as the US, the UK and Australia.
If the index were taken in 1940 the few countries still fighting the Nazis would not have done well under this index. And in 1940, every country still fighting the Nazis was a constitutional monarchy. Every one of them.
That says something about constitutional monarchies, doesn’t it?