I make the point in comments that having seen "Invictus" last night that some countries do manage to get good leaders (eventually) and cite Mandela as case in point.
My issue (from the previous post) about the monarchy is that it is essentially unjust, and unfair to give people authority and power on the basis of "accident of birth".
It seems to be nonsense to entrench injustice at the highest level of government.
There are of course many injustices and corruptions that flow into leadership struggles, not the least of which is the influence of big money and political parties.
My combatant suggests that Mandela is good because he is actually 'royalty' of the African kind.
The truth is, whether royalty or not, he was still elected.
It seems ludicrous to me that a country like ours should even consider having as head of state someone who is not a citizen of our land. (Whether 'royal' or not, Mandela was a South African...the Windsors are not Australians).
A person, even with dual citizenship, is excluded from being a Senator in the Federal Parliament unless they renounce their citizenship of the alien land. And rightly so.
I do not see monarchists even faintly suggesting that anyone of Aboriginal royal descent should be promoted as potential King or Queen of Australia! The idea has certain appeal!
Putting all that aside, it is easy to get distracted by seductive niggling arguments which divert us.
But, fundamentally, I cannot see that any nation should have as its leader someone who is the citizen of another country.
Whilst allowing for the fact that most systems have deep flaws I also cannot see that the leader should just become so because of accident of birth. At the very least the particular candidate, whether monarch or president or governor, should have some sort of popular approval...probably by a majority of votes in favour (whether of the populace or the Parliament)