a form of government in which one person who inherits or is forced to a throne the leader's power is limited by laws A constitutional monarchy is a form of political government, NOT an economic system. There can be a variety of different economic policies (and economic theories) employed by a country under a constitutional monarchy. So, your question is unanswerable - it depends heavily on what type of constitutional monarchy, and what specific economic policy that constitutional monarchy follows.
T
Ancient Rome had three types of government, not four. They were the monarchy, the republic and the principate. The principate (erroneously called the "empire") could be said to be divided into two types of singular rule, the principate and the dominate.
It depends entirely on how much power operates independently of the monarch. There are some constitutional monarchies like Morocco and Jordan, where the King has a few restraints and needs parliament's rubber stamp on some things, but primarily operates as an absolutist. There are other constitutional monarchies like Britain and Spain, where the King is effectively a remnant of the Ancien Régime and weilds no real power as concerns politics. And there are intermediate cases. The disadvantages of a constitutional monarchy derive directly from the type of constitutional monarchy that is being discussed. In the Strong Monarch constitutional monarchy, some disadvantages are: (1) lack of popular consensus, (2) instability and inconsistency between rulers, (3) no rule of law for the King In the Weak Monarch constitutional monarchy, the disadvantages are the same for any other democracy, such as: (1) indecisiveness of parliaments hold up the implementation of new laws, (2) short election cycles incentivize short term gains as opposed to long term benefits, (3) the King is an effective waste of taxpayer money because he does not do anything.
During the Monarchy and the Republic, the plebeians, like all Roman citizens, had the had the right to vote in the assembly of the tribes, which was a popular assembly. In the late Monarchy and early to mid-Republic, if they had a level property above a certain threshold, they could also vote in the assembly of the soldiers. During the Republic, the plebeians also formed their own assembly, the plebeian council. Originally they voted in this council only on matters regarding the plebeians. Over time, this assembly became the main voting body to approve or reject most laws, including laws which were binding on all Roman citizens, including the patricians.
No, Canada is a Parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. When its government was first set up, it followed the British Westminster system.
In an absolute monarchy, there is no limit on the power of the ruler. A constitutional monarchy imposes certain limits on the ruler's power. In the UK, the monarch's role is largely ceremonial.
They have a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
a form of government in which one person who inherits or is forced to a throne the leader's power is limited by laws A constitutional monarchy is a form of political government, NOT an economic system. There can be a variety of different economic policies (and economic theories) employed by a country under a constitutional monarchy. So, your question is unanswerable - it depends heavily on what type of constitutional monarchy, and what specific economic policy that constitutional monarchy follows.
deminacen republic, mexico ect. like that
Its a parliamentary democracy within a Constitutional Monarchy?
No. It is a parliamentary monarchy that is a constitutional monarchy with a prime minister.
The Roman government changed many times throughout its existence. In the very beginning, it was ruled by kings as a monarchy before becoming a republic.
The Roman Republic was not mostly like Sparta. It was totally different.
In an absolute monarchy, the king has complete power over society. In a constitutional monarchy, the king only has as much power as the constitution grants him. In some places, like Morocco, the constitutional monarch is very powerful, but not quite absolute. In some places like Britain, the constitutional monarch is so weak that it is practically an irrelevancy.
There is no Republic of Thailand. Thailand is a kingdom - an absolute monarchy - Thailand is not a democracy. Its head of state is King Bhumibol (Rama IX). No Thailand is not an absolute monarchy-it is a constitutional monarchy. Occasionally elections are held in the country but if the King does not like the result he immediately dissolves that government. <---- No, he does not have the power to resolve the parliament, at least not through directly. See Wikipedia entries on 'Fascism', 'Imperialism' and the 'May 15 Incident', for more information about this government type.