Cultural & National Unity

Neat. I remember some of the most holy moments of my childhood, the christmas eves. We had dinner and we all gathered before the television, not to look television on that moment of family togetherness, but to listen to the Christmas Message of his Majesty Baudouin I, King of Belgium. It began... tadaam tadam tadam tadadaam... the anthem. Then his voice, the thin voice with the heavy french accent, the voice that everybody knew, because its owner was everywhere, on money, on postage stamps...: "Ouaarde Landgenoten, de Koningin en iek...". Yes, we felt "landgenoten" (compatriotes) at that moment and it added to the feeling of unity that we had at this special eve. His successor Albert II hasn't the same flair I think, he's too much of a funny guy. But after all I grew up (a little). Does this count as a reply?

No. National identity and nationalism have managed to flourish in the United States under representative government. "never really grow" is the sticky part.

But if we slightly alter your question, the answer reverses.

'Do representational forms of government that limit terms encounter a natural disadvantage when trying to grow national identity, fervor and enthusiasm, as compared to forms of government with a more consistent governing body or sovereign?'

Generally speaking, yes seems to be accurate. Of course, this is a broad generalization.

But let us imagine some well-liked sovereign coming to power in some nation. In Scenario 1, he comes to power in a representative state with a term limit of, say, four years. One would imagine that such a well liked sovereign would in those four years foster a respectable degree of increased national identity and nationalism as the population comes to trust in the sovereign's wisdom.
In Scenario 2 the same well like sovereign comes to power in the same nation except that the nation is, in this scenario, a monarchy. Let us say the sovereign rules for 40 years. Without any more information, without the unimaginable and unpredictable complexes of ruling for extended periods of time, we would imagine that this 40 year reign would engender ten times the amount of national identity and nationalism (ignoring, of course, diminishing returns).

Again, a broad generalization. With the unimaginably diverse set of possible circumstances any given nation might face, the complexities of the individual sovereign and his ability to handle his nation's circumstances over a period of time, this conclusion is pure hypothetical approximation. But I think we can conclude that representative governments with term limits are natural less capable of fostering national identity and nationalism than governments such as monarchy.

(nationalism being understood as distinct from patriotism - nationalism, 'my country right or wrong'; patriotism, loving one's country enough to enthusiastically dissent)

The true enemy of national unity is injustice... How can anyone join with their exploiter for the common defense of a common land when it is not common to you...It is not flags, symbols or individuals which make nations... Nation, the word comes from natal; a shared mother... Okay, so we have no natural nations... What then will be our alma mater??? Our soul mother must be justice for all... The best a king could do is lead justly... Why then count on another to give you what should be within your own power to have... Because if you cannot count on justice and pursue it you are not free... And this is the history of mankind as conceived of by marxist, as class struggle... And all civilizations are not simply culture, as the Germans speak of civilization; but a minimum of two, of a dominant and submissive culture... The beginning of civilization is the submission of women to the will of men... That is the original class division and that remains till the end...That injustice is only the beginning of others...

Actually it is often thought that the beggining of civilisation was the submission of men to women- men repressed their urge to wander hunting/gathering and mating with as many women as possible, and trade this in for the stability of a singular mate (sometimes several, but in most societies most men have had one singular mate), and take a role in feeding and supporting a family.

No... Democracy, and cooperative society requires the utilization of all the intelligence of all the people...Civilization means conquest, first of women and then the world...The fact that this weakens society and makes their future conquest by other, primitive, tribal, and vital people certain is lost on them...Women can still be objects of value, and sometimes the only path to power is marriage...It is not the same as for primitives who were primitive because they did not grasp the male contribution to child bearing, and if they did, would have practiced animal husbandry and give up hunting...Look at the Bible...I think it was Isaak who was allowed to keep all the goats that were black and white, and he put the strong black and white goats with the ewes...But he also practiced simpathetic magic in regard to the process, so that what they saw while mating would get into their wombs, meaning he really did not grasp the process...

You are wrong about most societies having a single mate... We do this for a specific reason...We want to pass on property rights through a single person to as few people as possible... Capital is such a commanding ideology that we all think now as kings, and want to build up our estates to be kingdoms...

Civilisation is about the establishment of a stable society- and this sometimes means war, but this is not the primary mode of civilisation. Nor is conquest always purely millitary, or purely evil. Take the romans- wars of conquest led to lasting peace and prospertity across the ancient world. Women have been wrongly mistreated throughout history, but this is due to a lack, not an inherant part, of civilisation.

civilizations are the result of war, and the certain continuation of war...If people did not conquer, they would need no more law than their morals...It is when one group runs over another that clearly stated laws must be published... But because civilizations do not bring justice they must always have more to satisfy their needs... Look at the Romans... The ate their own heart out... The rich would not breed and the poor were starved out, or fed to the lions...They could not defend themselves without the help of their former victims...And when the barbarians finally came with a purpose, Rome caved in... The average Greek was as poor as a slave, and why not? When one has to compete with a slave one does not live as a lord...And this was the class Socrates held in contempt, because in their poverty they were all too ready for the adventure of war whether it brought death or spoils...No; civilzations come out of war and mean war...
Women are the first class to be degraded in civilization...It has a meaning, you know...The understanding of the male role in reproduction is the beginning of animal husbandry, and civilization, where women become just another form of property conveying certain rights...