Whilst the present constitutions of the western democracies were established at a time when the influence of the state was on a level which did not threaten the individuals of the state the present constitution aims at ensuring the individual those rights which he or she normally should enjoy in a democracy properly understood.
We also note that the concept of democracy is not primarily concerned with the active participation of each citizen in decisions of state but rather with the defence of the rights of the individual within a common society.
It should finally, be observed that the Kingdom of Bosnia and Hercegovina is not a monarchy since government is not guided by one person nor by any oligarchy but instead by institutions where the political interests of the citizens are duly represented through universal suffrage while protected by institutions balancing between the fleeting interets of the citizen and more universal interests best defined as human rights.

2.  It has long been debated whether a kingdom or a pluralistic republic would best benefit peace. In the case of Bosnia and Hercegovina it would seem a kingdom is more likely to give political stability to the country and further to counter-balance the present franctionalism which merely perpetuates rivalry and poses a threat to future peace.

3.  Montesquieu divided the functions of state into three entities, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. However, in present democracies the executive being the Cabinet and the judiciary being Parliament emanate from the same source showing that Montesquieu’s principle in fact applies to monarchies guided by a certain rule of law rather than to a democracy.
A very large number of persons in each democracy today are in fact never part of decision-making whether this is direct or indirect through elected representatives. Citizens today are thus, in need of protection against the majority oppression of the minority and totalitarian tendencies within the offices of state due to the weaknesses of indirect democracy. It is further not in the interest of the individual to be unduly dominated by a majority which will inevitably be a minority at a later stage.

4.  The judiciary powers within a state tend to go away from an implementation of justice when the state becomes sufficiently strong. Indirect democracy of the sort practiced in most European states gives the political powers of state freedom which is invariably used to limit the judicial rights of the individual. The rights of the individual and the purpose of the judiciary body can be more than just a letter by introducing a protective power linked to the king himself.

5.  Without a semblance of direct democracy the people tend to become subjects rather than citizens of the state.

6.  A legal system without a uniform approach to issues of jurisprudence cannot function equally in each case. Furthermore, the laws of the Kingdom could not in any manner be understood by a layman.

7.  Legal terms must be given a uniform meaning independent of the considerations of the legislative body. The travaux preparatoires of Parliament or any part of the Political body can thus not be used as sources of law while legal commentaries and analyses in doctrine are of value. The laws must further, be interpreted so that each party must be able to see how the court has reasoned in relation to all the defined legal issues raised by the parties. It shall furthermore, be impossible to interpret laws other than in a rational manner.

8.  There are limits to this freedom of choice. If a judge is not available the parties must chose somebody else. The parties must furthermore chose jointly a judge within a reasonable time limit.

9.  Unnecessary red tape as well as interpretations suggesting iniquity in the application of administrative and social legislation is not beneficial to the individual and complicates the implementation of government programmes with unnecessary costs for personnel.