<doc.id=2034.b2>
<title> An exaggerated debate - the monarchy does not harm Sweden! </title>
For quite a while it has been debated whether Sweden should remain a monarchy or become a republic. Republicans mean that the monarchy is an old-fashioned state of government which there is not room for in a modern democracy as Sweden. They argue against the fact that the Head of State is not elected by the people according to his or her competence. Below I intend to explain why these arguments need to be reconsidered. As reference I will use an article on the issue by Rasmus Jonlund of the Republican Society in Stockholm.
Jonlund's main concern is that the monarchy is a threat towards the democracy of Sweden. He states that the monarch is Head of State, and the highest office of the country should, according to democratic values, be elected by the people. This is true, but Jonlund makes the monarch appear as the most powerful person of the country. He does not consider that the king or queen only has representational duties of importance today. I argue that the actual power lies with the Government and voters choose which parties should be represented there. Indeed, the monarch is the chairperson of several committees and boards within the Government, a reminiscence from older days when the monarch's power was stronger, but in reality, the power of the people is not at all affected by this. 
Secondly, Jonlund wants to abolish the monarchy with consideration for the royalties' own good. Of course I agree with him in this respect: media is often going too far, with journalists penetrating into crown princess Victoria's private life and so on. But will there be a change overnight just by introducing a republican system of government? Tabloids and similar press has gained such popularity and has become such a large part of media nowadays. The truth is that the private lives of official persons will always be of interest. Even if there is not a monarch as Head of State, there will be someone else whose life - together with his or her family's life - will be speculated on and written about. Just look at the Clinton family! The President's wife and daughter are well-known in media, and of what interest are they to ordinary people? What I want to say is that famous people always will be a prey of journalists and photographers. Thus the argument that Sweden should abolish the monarchy to save people's privacy is not valid. It will not work.
Rasmus Jonlund's third argument concerns the competence of the Head of State. He holds that the monarch is not elected according to his or her qualifications. Once again I think that Jonlund is confusing the role of the monarch. The prime minister is chosen carefully and would never be appointed unless he or she was found suitable. The importance in competence lies with the prime minister. The monarch is born into his office as Head of State and is raised and educated as such, growing into the role. Therefore I argue that the two hold completely different offices in society and should not be compared.
Jonlund and his fellow republicans see the question about the monarchy in Sweden as a most burning issue. Myself I feel that much of the debate is exaggerated. People are not suffering from living in a monarchy, so why change state of government? It will not solve any problems. Neither is it worth the time and effort required!
</doc>