Constitutional monarchy isnt bad in my opinion but i dont care. If i were Serb i would first demand he learns language well and proves with his work that he is interested for benefit of all Serb people.

As far as our ancestors goes well hmm i dont know how to say. Let us just say they had voting kingdoms (or realms). Rulers from "noble" ranks elected by other nobles. This was case the of Carantania, Novgorodian Republic, etc. These were not republics of today. It cannot be compared at all. Even Roman Rep. had aristocrats and they practicaly dominated whole political scene.

Well, I agree with first point. Concerning second, Novgorod become elective monarch it is truth but before it was plain hereditary Rurik passed throne to Igor (With Oleg as co-regent), Igor passed to Svyatoslav (with Olga as co-regent), Svyatoslav to Yaropulk, Yaropulk was overthrown by younger brother Vladimir (no election). In Serbia we also had hereditary monarchies with lot of owerthorws, smae goes for Croatia, Bulgaria… well point Slavs were pretty much like all other European nations back then. Not better not worst, same.
To get back on topic, constitutional monarchy places role of head of state on metapolitical level. He represents unity of nation and non of political groups could claim him (or her) as its own, monarch is symbol of national unity.


6 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Симеон
  • m1tric
  • Shvo
  • Lyutenitsa™
  • MaRk0V
  • Australian Santa