Dutch too, here. And we can elect local representatives. Multiple layers of "local" even. We elect the city council, we elect a province council and we elect a national parliaments. All three have actual power and make actual, practical differences.
What we cannot elect, is the mayor, or the head of the province. Both are placed by the King.
The problem in the Netherlands is not that we cannot elect local representatives, as that is simply false: we can.
The problem is that we are not a pure democracy like a republic would be, but that the head of the state, with actual political power, is Elected By God. Not the people.
> The problem is that we are not a pure democracy like a republic would be, but that the head of the state, with actual political power, is Elected By God. Not the people.
Is it really a problem though? In practice, they (European rulers) have little actual power, so it's not unlike the president of Portugal, except it's a bit fancier during state visits...
I am not saying it is a problem; merely stating that a monarchy undermines the concept of a democracy like the parent comment wanted to illustrate.
But, now that you ask: I personally feel a monarchy is a problem, in a purely academical way: the idea that some person, instated by God, rules me, and not the democratically elected government, goes against my principles.
Academic, yes, because in practice, a King will hardly ever use the given power; and even if so, he'll do exactly once. "But she is such a nice person" is what people often said about our Queen. And "Willem is really a very likable person" about our current. As a person, and maybe even as a ruler, I trust Willem, our king, a lot more to make the right choices then our current MP will do. In practice, there is little wrong with a monarchy, in our day-to-day lives. But in theory, there is a lot wrong with the concept. And one needs not look very far in history to see how kings and emperors, or others placed outside a democracy have misbehaved.
