Monarchy = tyranny
Published Thursday, April 20, 2006 by Editor | E-mail this post 

In Nepal, the monarchy has come under increasing pressure to renounce authoritarian rule, The country, long an absolute monarchy, embraced democratic reforms under then King Birendra, who was assassinated in 2001, by his son the crown prince.
Since that time Nepal has been ruled by Birendra’s brother King Gyanendra. Under his leadership the pace of democratic reform came to a screeching halt as Maoist rebels sought to overthrow the Nepalese regime. The King dissolved parliament and re-imposed authoritarian rule, ostensibly to counter the terrorist threat (sounds like the makings of an episode of 24).
While there is no question that Maoist terrorists pose a serious threat to Nepal’s stability and security, the actions of the country’s king only serve the interests of the terrorists. Just as Chiang Kai-shek’s, brutal and corrupt regime paved the way for the Maoists to seize power in China in 1949. As Nepal’s tyrannical authoritarian monarchy has continued to suppress individual liberties and denied its people their natural right to self-determination, a growing number of Nepalese subjects have taken to the streets in protests. These protests have led to violent clashes with Nepal’s security forces. In many cases, the very same Maoists whose actions prompted the return of authoritarian rule are among the most vocal, and violent, protestors, egging on the populace.
In reality monarchy, whether it is an authoritarian regime like that in Nepal or a relatively benign regime like that in Great Britain, monarchy anywhere is an affront to liberty and tramples upon a person’s natural right to determine and shape their own destiny. The premise that another human being has a hereditary right to rule over his fellow human beings is in conflict with logic and common sense. While a nation like Nepal’s regime may manifest its tyranny in a more obvious manner, all monarchies are essentially tyrannical. As long as a state recognizes someone or something, other than its people as sovereign the people do not have actual freedom.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/04/19/nepal.king.gyanendra/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/04/20/nepal/index.html
Agreed. Constitutional monarchies - Norway, Sweden, Great Britain - however, strip all state decision making powers away from the royal family, essentially making them equivalent to our Hollywood elites, fit for tabloids and charity benefits. (Ummm... except that they are really really really wealthy) AND in Britain the queen JUST STARTED paying taxes! The whole concept of royalty is archaic and comes from the idea of citizens as subjects. Backwards. Unacceptable. Glad I live in a republic ;-)