Queen Elizabeth II recently passed away. That has made Charles III become the king, as he was next in line for the succession to the throne. Yet, instead of trying to make his best as the new head of government for the UK, Charles III threw a tantrum during his coronation. This has stirred up a number of dissentions, added to the negative opinion he has been receiving due to his withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

Looking at the current power structures around the world, the direction of political progress worldwide is a far cry from monarchy: most countries seek to establish democratic republics. Thus, the question that comes to mind is, is the monarchy in the interest of the country?

Let me give you an example. Hirohito entered World War II through a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor – that is, without any official declaration of war. This was not approved by the Japanese people nor by the people in the colonial country, as they demanded Hirohito to give up his government and his life. In spite of their defeat, Japan did not surrender to the USA until the end, which only led to one of the worst tragedies in human history. Hirohito made his people die uselessly, although he was by no means a god who could wield the fate of the people at his every whim. Have you ever seen the picture McArthur took with Hirohito? It must have been an American strategy to show that Hirohito was a common human being.

Analyzing this example, it seems dangerous for a nation’s fate to be influenced by just one leader. Wouldn’t it be necessary to eliminate the uncertainties and try moving into a safer direction?