The first Brazilian emperor, Peter I, led the movement against Portugal and declared independence, despite being a member of the Portuguese royal family. He ruled Brazil for only a few years before returning to Lisbon to be king of Portugal. His five-year-old son, Peter II, stayed in Brazil, was educated by a group of intellectuals far from his parents, and was crowned at only fourteen years old. Peter II ran the country for more than 50 years and became a legend. This week a well-known historian Jose Murilo de Carvalho has just published a book supporting the idea that Peter II was the most republican ruler that we have ever had.

Our history dismantles numerous myths and stereotypes. We have learned that monarchies can be democratic, and republics authoritarian. Peter II was a model of good governance. He was a sage, science enthusiastic and compassionate man. He was a militant of good causes, such as freedom of the press and abolition of slavery. His daughter, Princess Isabel, during one of her interim tenures signed the so-called Golden Law abolishing slavery. This law was one of the major reasons of his political demise. With the victory of the republican movement one year later, he was ousted and banned from the country along with his family. Living in exile until his death he refused the pension offered by the republican government. Our republic, on the other hand, has had three long periods of dictatorship, including its inaugural government. It started not through a popular revolution but with a military coup d’état.

Some years ago Brazilians were asked in a referendum what type of regime they would like to have: a parliamentary monarchy, a parliamentary republic or a presidential republic. The latter has won by a vast majority. We know that the idea of blue-blooded elite is completely outdated. Our history allows us the opportunity to cure a nostalgia some people still have in relation to kings, queens, princes and princesses. We do not believe in fairy tales. Once upon a time we had such a government, and it was not so bad. We hold fond memories of that era; however, it does belong in the past.

I strongly believe that a monarchy harms the most valuable principle of modern life: the idea of equality among citizens. And it simply costs too much -- the cost-benefit ratio is too high. Monarchs really do not make sense in the 21st century.

The question proposed by this post is intriguing. Some countries seem to be trying to create a kind of aristocracy for the modern era. It happens not only with celebrities. Think about the United States. In the year of 2008, Americans will complete 20 years under the administration of only two families: the Bushes and the Clintons. The next president could be another Clinton, and, God save all of you, there is another Bush waiting on line. This week, George Bush II thought he caught a motherly look in Queen Elizabeth II’s eyes. Frankly, this situation is embarrassing for a country that was born as a model of the people’s government.