i think it doesn't matter either way.

the only thing it changed is the head of the state. otherwise even when there was a king, the person responsible to direct the nation towards prosperity was prime-minister. the king overtook only coz of so many failed attempts to solve the national problems and instability in the development process. if the prime-minister can resolve all these issues then there is no need 4 king to bother.

anyway, removing the king i think we removed one bulk of the inactive organization.