Monarchy vs Republic

[Caninope]

What about a constitutional monarchy where the king or queen is elected?

Then how is it a monarchy?

Easy. Monarchies aren't necessarily hereditary, power is just embodied (whether in reality or nominally) in a single person.

See: The Holy See (and the Vatican City)

[Seleucas]

No, I want a leader who is more concerned with the history of locksmithing, while the likes of Adolf Hitler and Mao are confined to being starving artists and peasants, respectively, where they will have trouble exercising their powers of persuasion and organization to evil effect. A king of a monarchy is more or less chosen on a lottery, where the next king could be of any temperament, but having free entry into the heights of power will ensure that the most vicious types will climb their way up... and that they will be able to consolidate their power in the general public while the masses would be inherently distrustful of someone born into such a different status than they. And I do not consider democracy to be any closer to a form of consent than royal monarchy (and some flavor of autocracy is found in any system of government; any organization is going to need unity or it will fail.) A king is about as likely to listen to a suggestion of mine as my vote is to change the outcome of an election, possibly even more considering that my chance of changing the outcome of a presidential election is about the same as winning the Powerball Lottery 128 times in a row.

You said wanted a person with a personal cult and I gave Mao and Hitler as examples.
You have two millionaires one worked for his wealth and built his wealth. The other won the lottery. Who is better?

No, I said I don't want a leader with a cult of personality, which follows from how I said I don't want a leader who is sympathetic to the populace (and who thus would be able to cultivate a cult of personality.) And the Genovese crime family worked to make their money (by screwing people over, against their consent), so I would rather have the millionaire who earned his money by the lottery.

Did I say I wanted an absolute monarchy? No. But neither do I want one where the monarchy is utterly emasculated; that is the same kind of monarchy that Britain was when it blundered into the First World War. I want a monarchy where the power of numbers can be balanced by the authority of one person, something more like when each house of Parliament and the King can restrain one another, or something like the Dutch republic where power was decentralized among the provinces and a de facto king's power was balanced by the aristocrats and commons who chose who to send to their States-General (their Parliament.) Also, North Korea is not a monarchy; there's nothing royal about it, but given the choice, I would prefer to live in Saudi Arabia, a monarchy, over North Korea, a Marxist dictatorship where one has no chance of opposing the organized and consolidated Communist Party.

Besides, I would question if the US is really the best example for a purely republican system with free entry to office; it more or less blundered into supremacy by virtue of having two oceans on either side, its main rivals destroyed themselves and left it to ascend to power by default, and most of its advantages are a result of its patrimony from English jurisprudence and customs, not really anything it developed on its own. And it looks like it is most likely going to lose its dominant position after one of the shortest golden ages of any empire (1945-1971.) Not nearly as impressive as, say, the British Empire which ruled for centuries and on which the sun never set.

North Korea is a monarchy, there is no denying that. It is an autocracy and has hereditary rule and most importantly the Kim Dynasty are actually worshipped as gods. Kim Il-Sung is even after death is still the ruler, the 'Eternal President' and of course there are the propaganda myths such as being able to control the weather and the double rainbows at Kim Jong-Il's birth. And the fact that you call it a Marxist Dictatorship shows your ignorance, it even removed Marxism officially from its constitution and replaced it with Juche. So North Korea is neither De Jure or De Facto Marxist.

I'm not just talking about leadership. Land of Opportunity: It's real and it's good, and there should be more of it, Asian President, Gay president, Muslim president, Atheist President one day you will get them.

No, North Korea is not a monarchy; it is a socialist dictatorship. While they might have removed any reference to Marxism-Leninism from their constitution, nevertheless their ruling philosophy still remains inspired by Stalinism (such nominal changes are more a matter of deriding China and Russia than substantive changes in their philosophy) and there are no private property rights (private property rights being central to monarchy.) Furthermore, unlike a monarchy in which power is divided among multiple classes who attempt to keep one another in balance (during the Joseon dynasty, for instance, there was a division between the king, his Confucian scholar officials, the gentry, and commoners, with the king being ultimately unable to extirpate Confucian ideals that would limit his power), virtually all power in North Korea is concentrated in the North Korean Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, and Kim Jong-Un would know better than to antagonize his party despite all of his propaganda.

It is not a coincidence that the Joseon kings of Korea exercised far less power than the Juche leaders of North Korea, because the two systems are fundamentally different; in a monarchy, the ruling class is distinct from the rest of the population, with the general population providing for itself. This means that the population is more hesitant to hand over any power because it will not do them any good to do so and will only benefit the ruling class; they will want to retain what they have made for themselves. In fact, owing to the hereditary nature of the property rights of the aristocracy and monarchy, the ruling class will actually be divided against itself yet, at the same time, no segment will be able to seize sole power for itself (hence the common historical phenomena of a king and his nobles having an antagonistic relationship with one another without the destruction of one or another.) A system like modern North Korea's, however, works quite differently; owing to the nature of mass politics, the dominant political party has to engage the population by offering entry into their ranks and supplying benefits (jobs, food, etc.) so that people are made dependent on the ruling party and will surrender their liberty and power in the hopes of being able to reap some benefit (it's hard to criticize or resist the excesses of a political office, for instance, when you or someone you like could potentially occupy it.)

Also, heredity does play a part in monarchy, but it is not its only characteristic; nepotism does not always play a part in dictatorships (Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Maoist China were not remarkably nepotistic), and where it does play a role it does so in a different way from a monarchy. While a king's successor could be well-meaning or even a drooling idiot, and not be overthrown, the trend among the sons of dictators succeeding or being prepared for succession is that they are just as vicious as their fathers, like Kim Jong-Il or Uday and Qusay Hussein, means that the most vicious will still rise to the top in a dictatorship or be replaced by someone more amoral.

Finally, the US is a shadow of itself, and not much of a 'land of opportunity' any more; it has set itself up for monetary, fiscal, and geopolitical defeat, as well as having become more restrictive of the freedoms it once allowed. That there might be cosmetic changes to the leadership won't change that.

[Trollgaard]

Finally, the US is a shadow of itself, and not much of a 'land of opportunity' any more; it has set itself up for monetary, fiscal, and geopolitical defeat, as well as having become more restrictive of the freedoms it once allowed. That there might be cosmetic changes to the leadership won't change that.

You always say this, but you never give a shred of evidence.

[Chinese Regions]

Monarchy sucks ass

[Doner Kebab]

No, North Korea is not a monarchy; it is a socialist dictatorship. While they might have removed any reference to Marxism-Leninism from their constitution, nevertheless their ruling philosophy still remains inspired by Stalinism (such nominal changes are more a matter of deriding China and Russia than substantive changes in their philosophy) and there are no private property rights (private property rights being central to monarchy.) Furthermore, unlike a monarchy in which power is divided among multiple classes who attempt to keep one another in balance (during the Joseon dynasty, for instance, there was a division between the king, his Confucian scholar officials, the gentry, and commoners, with the king being ultimately unable to extirpate Confucian ideals that would limit his power), virtually all power in North Korea is concentrated in the North Korean Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, and Kim Jong-Un would know better than to antagonize his party despite all of his propaganda.

You just want to part your ideas from North Korea by claiming it is not a monarchy when it clearly is one, an absolute one because you know how crappy it's human right's record is as with almost every absolute monarchy . The only good argument for monarchy is probably tradition or culture. If a country has never had a monarchy such as the United States or has gone a long enough time without a monarchy such as France, then it definitely shouldn't be a monarchy, at least not a absolute one, no state should be that.

[Chinese Regions]

No, North Korea is not a monarchy; it is a socialist dictatorship. While they might have removed any reference to Marxism-Leninism from their constitution, nevertheless their ruling philosophy still remains inspired by Stalinism (such nominal changes are more a matter of deriding China and Russia than substantive changes in their philosophy) and there are no private property rights (private property rights being central to monarchy.) Furthermore, unlike a monarchy in which power is divided among multiple classes who attempt to keep one another in balance (during the Joseon dynasty, for instance, there was a division between the king, his Confucian scholar officials, the gentry, and commoners, with the king being ultimately unable to extirpate Confucian ideals that would limit his power), virtually all power in North Korea is concentrated in the North Korean Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, and Kim Jong-Un would know better than to antagonize his party despite all of his propaganda.

You just want to part your ideas from North Korea by claiming it is not a monarchy when it clearly is one, an absolute one because you know how crappy it's human right's record is as with almost every absolute monarchy . The only good argument for monarchy is probably tradition or culture. If a country has never had a monarchy such as the United States or has gone a long enough time without a monarchy such as France, then it definitely shouldn't be a monarchy, at least not a absolute one, no state should be that.

[Minavar]

Monarchy.

[Chinese Regions]

Monarchy.

Wadiyan citizen at gunpoint: Only if the monarch is the great Aladeen.

[Socialist EU]

Monarchy whether or not I am the monarch.

Same here.

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

[The Nuclear Fist]

The only good argument for monarchy is probably tradition or culture.

If you're going to go and argue tradition, why not argue for feudalism? For serfdom? Both of those were traditional and cultural aspects. Why not go back to tribalism and warlords, as both of those were aspects of human society for tens of thousands of years.

[Salandriagado]

Same here.

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

Monarchies, on average, are more democratic than republics.

[Distruzio]

Same here.

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

The question is about governmental structure preferences, not economic preferences.

[Chinese Regions]

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

The question is about governmental structure preferences, not economic preferences.

How rich is Cambodia again, both today and during the genocide years where Pol Pot fought so hard for freedom.

[Chinese Regions]

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

Monarchies, on average, are more democratic than republics.

Constitutional monarchies.

[Socialist EU]

The question is about governmental structure preferences, not economic preferences.

How rich is Cambodia again, both today and during the genocide years where Pol Pot fought so hard for freedom.

[Caninope]

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

Monarchies, on average, are more democratic than republics.

Constitutional monarchies are, sure.

You want to know why? Most constitutional monarchies are in the West, and thus have a long, democratic tradition. There are only a few Western nations I can think of without monarchies, and the two most significant are the US and Germany. Both had monarchies (or, in the US' case, it had a monarchy before it was a sovereign state).

[Socialist EU]

Oh yeah, because Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman are wonderful places.

The question is about governmental structure preferences, not economic preferences.

And of course they're not fighting for democracy, no! (note the sarcasm)

[Bakrova]

monarchy!

[Chinese Regions]

How rich is Cambodia again, both today and during the genocide years where Pol Pot fought so hard for freedom.

Don't you know? Pol Pot is the liberator of the masses is so freedomlovingly liberated his people by committing genocide.
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM.

[Socialist EU]

Don't you know? Pol Pot is the liberator of the masses is so freedomlovingly liberated his people by committing genocide.
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM.

Yea, and your point is?

[Nadkor]

There are only a few Western nations I can think of without monarchies, and the two most significant are the US and Germany.

France? Italy? Switzerland? Portugal? Ireland? Austria?

In fact this is a handy map of Europe:


And the Americas:


Monarchies in maroon/burgundy in both.

[Thespinia]

Also, Cambodia.

I was thinking purely temporal power, so I missed that one...but Cambodia was one I genuinely did not know. Thought it was hereditary.

And the Polish Commwealth, although that was more oligarchic than anything else...

[Socialist EU]

Don't you know? Pol Pot is the liberator of the masses is so freedomlovingly liberated his people by committing genocide.
WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SARCASM.

Yea, and your point is?

Ok, I'll take that as a concession that you do not have a point, other than sarcastically pointing out the obvious.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I see not a single absolute monarchy in the top 10 scores on the HDI list. Not even one.

Also, aren't we committing the correlation fallacy if we argue that these higher scores are a direct consequence of these countries' nature as constitutional monarchies? For instance, I cannot help but notice that the greater bulk of the top ten feature one form or another of universal healthcare and some also feature universal tertiary education. Is it not possible that these, rather than the presence or absence of a monarch, are the driving factors behind these nations' higher scores?

And even if not, why should the monarchism be the cause? Why not the fact that most of the top ten are parliamentary in nature rather than presidential? Could it be that parliamentarism, rather than monarchism, leads to higher HDI scores? Such an argument bears equal strength using the OP's reasoning, and I believe that such an argument is equally incorrect.

Top Ten Countries by HDI Score; Government Type

1. Norway; Constitutional Monarchy
2. Australia; Constitutional Monarchy
3. Netherlands; Constitutional Monarchy
4. USA; Constitutional Republic
5. New Zealand; Constitutional Monarchy
6. Canada; Constitutional Monarchy
7. Ireland; Parliamentary Republic
8. Liechtenstein; Constitutional Monarchy
9. Germany; Constitutional Republic
10. Sweden; Constitutional Monarchy

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Table1.pdf

While I stand in firm opposition to absolute monarchism, I remain open to the concept of constitutional monarchism with the parliament and prime minister holding all practical legislative and executive powers.

[Ulvena]

Republic. While a good monarch can develop and control a nation far better than any President could, a bad monarch could destroy everything faster than any President could. Of course, an England style constitutional parliamentary monarchy or a Japanese style constitutional parliamentary monarchy isn't all that bad. It attracts tourists.