<doc.id=2027.a2>
<title> Monarchy demoralises everywhere it exists </title>
All people have equal value. Although practically everybody would agree on this, I think it is important to emphasize it. Democratic governmental systems based on everybody's equal value is actually the exception in the world today. Therefore - in Sweden, the exception - we should not sit back and relax. It is instead important that we carefully scrutinize our own society, for in the top of the country sits a man who has "got his position from God".
	 Indeed, the words "from God" rather makes you laugh than fills you with respect, but we cannot disregard the historical role the monarch has played. It is a role that symbolises tyranny, injustices, disrespect of human values and lack of civil rights - as far from democracy as you could possibly get... 
	 "All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people." These are the words of the first paragraph of the Swedish form of government. It is the principle of political democracy, the principle on which we have built our modern Swedish society, the principle on which all laws concerning the public power's form and purpose are based. Despite this, there are still non-democratic remains in the Swedish constitution; the head of state is not elected, but actually inherits its official position. This is completely unacceptable in a democratic society - the highest official position and commission of trust in Sweden must, of course, be appointed in agreement with the above mentioned principle. 
	 Karl XVI Gustav, performs his job well, and this is the major reason why many Swedes want Sweden to remain a monarchy. But as I explained above, it is a matter of principles... It is extremely irrelevant whether the king performs his job well or poorly - the point is that the people have not had the opportunity to decide who should be the head of state. It is possible (if not likely, concerning the fact that the present king is popular) that, if the Swedish people had the possibility to choose whoever they wanted, we would still have Karl XVI Gustav as head of state - the difference lies in the principles, not the person. Another reason for changing the law concerning the appointment of our head of state is that, even though the present monarch might be sympathetic, we never know what kind of idiot who might succeed to the throne in the future...
	 Some people are of the opinion that the fact that the monarch is not political is a great advantage, and that another system, like an elected president, would make the head of state political. I agree - a change of system would indeed have this effect, but, as I see it, this is a positive, rather than a negative, consequence. Sweden needs a head of state who can take an active interest in the international problems - someone who not only holds pointless speeches and handles different ceremonies. We need someone who unites Swedish policies towards other countries and states. The question the Swedish people must ask themselves is: "Do we really want our head of state not to be a political person, who only handles ceremonies and holds pointless speeches, without being able to contribute with something to the world politics dispite his/her outstanding position in Sweden?". Everybody has political opinions, and not letting the monarch express his is insulting.
	 As I see it, it is, out of principle, extremely important to change the current form of government. The Swedish people must have the right to choose their own head of state. One problem remains, though; What on earth is the Swedish evening press going to write about, in lack of other subjects that, to the same extent, absorbs the Swedish people?
</doc>