Talk:Politics of Monaco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it appropriate to describe Monaco as a "constitutional monarchy" with no qualification. Obviously it's not an absolute monarchy, and is a constitutional monarchy in the 19th century sense, but normally when we say "constitutional monarchy" today what we mean is something on the English/Scandinavian/Low Countries model, where the monarch has been effectively removed from politics altogether and has become a figurehead. I would think this assumption would hold particularly true when discussing a monarchy in Europe. And yet, this is certainly not the case. Monaco seems comparable to Kuwait, which we describe as a constitutional monarchy, but with some immediate qualification. The phrasing with respect to Liechtenstein also seems better to me - it refers to it as a parliamentary democracy, but also says that "the prince retains strong powers." And, as I understand it, the Prince of Monaco is a lot more powerful than the Prince of Liechtenstein. I think some tweaking of the wording is in order. john k 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)