In Italy the only people elected by the citizens are the members of the Parliament.
The head of the state is elected by the members of the parliament every 7 years.
The head of the government is chosen ("invested") by the head of the state after a round of consultations with representatives of the political parties after the parliamentary election (basically the president asks "guys, who would you like as your own leader?"). The appointment of the head of the government is then approved (or, often, refused) by a parliamentary vote.
It was customary (before Berlusconi's times) for the winning party to elect its own representative as the head of the higher chamber. At the same time the losing party would get to elect the head of the lower chamber. (Yes, "lame duck" by design.)
All this complicated dance of indirect elections (that the current parties would like to remove) has been put in place after the WW2 to avoid too much power being in the hands of these high-profile figures or of a single party. "You have not been elected. We, the parliament are those who reign here." The head of the state cannot even address the parliament or get physically near the discussion hall without a written request from the MPs.
All of this was put in place after World War II to centralize power in the hands of the Christian Democrats, and force non-communist parties to go into coalition with them. As all prime ministers for a half century after WWII were either Christian Democrats or from those parties in coalition with them, it worked fairly well. Of course even this had bumps in the road so you have the 1948 elections which the communist/socialist coalition won but which was fixed the other way, a strategy of tension by P2 and the far right being blamed on the far left as the left makes electoral and other advances in the 1970s, plus you have Gladio and secret NATO armies in the wings in case the communists are actually elected into power. Of course being Italian, you know all of this.
And yet this system allowed liberal reforms, like divorce and abortion, to be carried our during a center-right party rule, and Italy to become (at the time) the 7th most advanced economy.
Even the clause in the constitution that declared Chatolicism as the country's official religion was amended during CD rule.
It is (was) an imperfect system and it created a lot of instability, since even a party with a low share of votes could throw down the coalition government at any moment, but at least it forced parties to go beyond ideologies and work out compromises. The lack of alternance in power also fostered corruption, which was the downfall of CD.
Still, it's hard to consider what came after as a marked improvement for the country.
Once the Constitution was in place, overall political debate was indeed shaped by Cold War events and influences; but the document itself is arguably a pinnacle achievement of political theory, pushing representative democracy and collective responsibility to their limits.
The left-wing coalition (which was actually missing a piece of the socialists) didn't even get close to winning. It got 31% of the vote.
So how come we never hear that Eastern Europe became communist democratically? After all, they can point to election numbers as you do. Well, the Red Army occupied them some say. But the US armed forces occupied Italy - they still do. Well, the USSR, a foreign power meddled in the elections. The US and CIA admit how massively they meddled in Italy's 1948 (and subsequent) elections.
I can easily say that the non-communist and non-communist aligned parties in Eastern Europe "didn't even come close to winning" after World War II and the people of those countries democratically decided to become communist. After all, Hungary became communist after World War I without Russian intervention, a fact few in the West remember.
It's odd to see the US and CIA admitting after decades they interfered in and fixed the Italian 1948 elections, yet you still hold up the phony results, yet everyone can easily discount the elections in eastern Europe after World War II, where Russia simply did the same thing the US did.
In any case, an argument that Eastern Europe's Communist governments were illegitimate cannot be countered by saying that Western Europe's governments were illegitimate, no matter how true that may be.
In the preceding 1946 elections, the Communists got 19% and the Socialists got 20%, for a total of 39%.
In the 1948 elections, FDP (Communists + part of Socialists) got 31%, while the rest of the Socialists (including the man who was the leader of the Socialists in the previous elections) got 7%, for a total of 38%.
In the following 1953 elections, the Communists got 23%, the Socialists (who broke out of the failed FDP alliance) got 13%, for a total of 36%.
So we have 39% -> 38% -> 36%. You are arguing that the expected mid-point of that series would have been 51%, had it not been for the US fixing the elections. That is a Reptilian-level conspiracy theory.
As you say, in some countries, the official (purely symbolic) head of state has no real power (pointless in other words). That's OK-ish. I'd rather not have a symbolic president. But the main point is to not make the position hereditary.
Germany's president, whilst largely ceremonial, actually has some (residual) power by the way, but it's a 5-year term. Not elected by the people, however, which is a shame. For example, Finland's president is.
The situation in Japan is pretty stable. Why mess with success? And if the emperor has no power, why does it matter if the position is hereditary?
It matters because a hereditary head of state position (actually, any governmental/establishmentarian position) is a terrible symbol in what should be an egalitarian society, no matter if you have political power or not. I don't know how to put this more succinctly.
Why should society be egalitarian? Nature isn't.
Why shouldn't society recognise the heirs of great men specially?
I think that the ideal government has voices for the great mass of the people; for the magnates; and for a monarch. The U.K. system — until Tony Blair destroyed it — was good for exactly this, although the removal of the Lords' ability to block legislation, and the addition of life peers were recent mistakes.
It's a bit more complicated than that, to be fair. A big part of de Gaulle's motivation for the semi-presiential system of the Fifth Republic was due to the instability of the parliamentary system of the Third and Fourth Republics. Whatever else you might say about de Gaulle, the Fifth Republic has been remarkably stable and orderly compared to the regimes that preceded it after the revolution.
Even the same person can see a big difference depending on the popular perception of their power--see Hillary Clinton's favorability rating after she resigned as Secretary of State vs. now when she is running for President.
If Charles, as king, tries to stick his nose in things, he will be unpopular. But if he remains a distant figurehead, I bet he will still be more popular than the elected politicians in Australia.
I'm not intimately familiar with British law, and there may be other reasons why his divorce would make him ineligible, but it would not be for the same reasons that Edward was considered controversial.
Also, as regards Henry VIII and divorce, apparently he used the power of the newly created Church of England to annul his marriages, rather than actually get divorced.
His first wife wasn't giving him male children and she was approaching the end of her childbearing years, so he searched for an excuse to annul his marriage (on the basis it wasn't a valid marriage in the first place). Divorce was out of the question.
When the church administration in Rome didn't support him, he found excuses to break away and found his own church. In fact, the only real difference in the Anglican church in the early years was that Henry was the head of the church instead of the Pope. Anyone who didn't support this view was removed from the church or executed. Later on, the Anglican church evolved in a different direction under more Protestant-minded leaders.
Only two of Henry's marriages were annulled. The very first annulment happened after he had been married for many years and was legally the most questionable. However, he was the law at that point, so he made it happen. The second annulment was more of a typical annulment, and happened when he had only been married for a very short time (a couple months) and was apparently quite uninterested in his new wife.
His second and fifth wives were executed for adultery. The charges were entirely fabricated for Anne Boleyn, but they were probably actually true for Catherine Howard.
The third wife died of natural causes and the sixth wife was still alive and married when Henry died.
So while it may look like Henry made divorce OK for English kings, he technically did not divorce anyone. He either found excuses to have the marriages annulled or they were ended by the deaths of his wives.
I do live in a 1000-year-old constitutional monarchy after all and that's the pro arguments I tend to hear.
"Good for tourism" is another one.
Edward VII played a large role in setting the conditions for the Entente Cordial, in large part by partying a lot in France - activities a politician could never get away with even today. That cultural and ambassadorial role set the scene for the end to a 1000 years of Anglo-French conflict. More recently the current Queen has played major roles in healing the divisions of conflict, most recently with her trip to the Republic of Ireland.
Elderly politicians are still divisive in their election, regardless of whether they're elected by the public or some body. Their actions have to be viewed through the prism of political cynicism and the potential for advancing the interests of their party. Whereas a 90 year old woman who still carries out a punishing schedule of public duties presents a far more inspiring example of duty and loyalty. If no-one voted for you then you are beholden to no-one.
The Australian constitutional referendum was cleverly constructed to keep the monarchy. TWO republican options were offered in order to split the republican side, and both were engineered for short-term aggrandizement of politicians rather than give the country a sound constitution. So a "first, do no harm" strategy ended up with the most votes.
I think a system like the Germans have is pretty reasonable (though more complicated than Australia needs with only a handful of states none with a huge amount of autonomy). Then again, Australia really only needs a head of state to appoint a PM and greet visiting potentates. Apart from that there isn't much need for a GG. Oh and to consume fancy bird feathers.
Like many I chose "The changes on offer are worse than no change at all."
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum...
At this point, the monarchy is the default position, and I think it will stay that way until the monarch does something to piss off the majority of the Australian people.
Nobody goes to Australia to see the Queen.
Frankly, I think we could do worse then to add some hereditary peers to our republican government.
And generally, one sees that it's been a mistake.
A constitutional monarch can be a good defense against certain types of democratic failure.
One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to war in Iraq when the people didn't want it. The best example that it doesn't matter is Blair doing the same thing and Elisabeth 2 not doing anything about it.
Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything.
I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.
Otherwise, what is the point of having a head of state?
Remember that in parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government (the prime minister) are not the same person. In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the head of state is an elected president, usually an fairly elderly politician. The emperor of Japan would have to be replaced as head of state by someone holding some new office, who would do pretty much the same things the emperor does now, at a similar cost to the taxpayer. It wouldn't be the prime minister.
There is a similar aspect to the debate around House of Lords reform in the UK. A lot of people in the House of Commons don't want an elected House of Lords, because if it were elected, the Lords would have democratic legitimacy just as the Commons does, and could therefore make a reasonable case that it should have a lot more political power than it has now.
So, beware of unintended consequences.