>
> However I strongly believe that for all its excesses, autocracy it is capable of providing better governance than a populist vote. I can here the gasps of amazement already.
>
> The point is thus: With a monarchy (and by that I mean a real monarchy with actual powers, not the figureheads we have at the moment) you have people trained from birth to rule the country, and who know that if they do a bad job, they get their heads cut off. I would far rather see that than have horrible little oiks like Tony Blair voted in because the look good on TV and knowing that if the destroy the country they can get a £100,000 a year directorship of BP.
>
> I do agree that a good King is going to be no better than a good president, but I think there is far more impetus for a King to do a good job than there is for a president.
>
> winter"the cavalier"mute

Have you thought about something a bit more like some of the classical governments of the greek and roman? Something with more than just one ruler, but still from some kind of 'ruling class' - oligarchy I think the term is.

jul"we need to revise democracy"ian