Monarchy vs Republic

[Nordengrund]

For me, it really depends.

[Caninope]

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.

That's still only a few, and all of those had monarchies.

I wasn't trying to prove the superiority of monarchies over republics. I was simply saying that it was in these monarchical nations of Europe that democratic foundations for the modern era were laid.

[Caninope]

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.

Wrong.

Obviously, you're not familiar with how fast autocrats and despots (who aren't always monarchs) can bring down an entire country.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Monarchies, on average, are more democratic than republics.

Only because those monarchs who refused to give up their power to democratic leaders were given the National Razor.

[Nadkor]

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

In fact this is a handy map of Europe:
(Image)

And the Americas:
(Image)

Monarchies in maroon/burgundy in both.

That's still only a few, and all of those had monarchies.

I wasn't trying to prove the superiority of monarchies over republics. I was simply saying that it was in these monarchical nations of Europe that democratic foundations for the modern era were laid.

I wasn't addressing any of your points other than "There are only a few Western nations I can think of without monarchies". You will note that I snipped the rest of your post to demonstrate that I was addressing only that. As you can see, most Western nations do not have monarchies.

In any case, I'll look at your post now.

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).

You say that constitutional monarchies are more democratic because they have a long democratic tradition and then say that even Western countries that don't have monarchies did at one point, implying that their historical monarchies render them eligible for inclusion within your point.

You specifically cited Germany and the USA. Germany was essentially stripped of its autocratic monarchy as a result of WW1 (and it's subsequent attempt at absolutism was something of a failure, all things considered), and the colonies that formed the US got rid of their monarchy through armed and bloody insurrection.

Neither are shining examples of monarchy having set the foundations for democracy or established any democratic tradition. In both countries the eventual establishment of a lasting democracy came as the result of a reaction to the actions of non-democratic rulers.

All of these non-monarchies were monarchies at some point in the past (or their predecessor states were). Many had to violently overthrow their monarch or go through some other traumatic national experience in order to dispose of their monarchies.

The only reason constitutional monarchies exist is because the monarchs in those countries gave up their authority rather than have it wrested from them by the sharp end of a guillotine.

You say that constitutional monarchies are more democratic, and that even the "few" republics you can think of (ignoring the many republics in the Western world) once had monarchies anyway. While your point about constitutional monarchies generally having a democratic tradition is largely accurate (with few exceptions, such as Spain), the inclusion of certain former monarchies as implied examples of how even in republics, specifically citing Germany and the USA, the monarchy informed a democratic tradition is illogical. As I said; constitutional monarchies exist only because those monarchs were smart enough to avoid getting deposed, and the republics that were formerly monarchies generally inherited very little in the way of democracy from their previous rulers.

So, my final, actual, and concluding point: it's not whether a democratic country has a constitutional monarchy or a republic that informs how democratic it is, or even how long their democratic tradition is, it's how their democratic tradition was moulded by the actions of its non-democratic leaders and how that country reacted in developing a democratic system. In some cases those non-democratic rulers behaved so abhorrently that democracy was taken up with gusto (Germany), in some those non-democratic rulers so annoyed the local populace that they violently overthrew the government and created their own (USA), and in some the non-democratic rulers peacefully gave way to the onrushing tide of democracy (the UK). It doesn't matter if a country only really established lasting democracy 70 years ago, 230 years ago, or if it developed as a gradual passing of authority from a monarch to a Parliament. All three of these countries have strong democratic traditions, and are examples of some of the most democratic western nations. It's not the western constitutional monarchy of the UK that makes it democratic, it's not the presidential republic of the US that makes it democratic, its not the parliamentary republic of Germany that makes it democratic, and it's certainly not the 'length' of their democratic tradition; it's the system, and how the creation of that system was shaped by the actions of the country's non-democratic rulers.

edit: or tl;dr - you're almost correct about constitutional monarchies being generally democratic because they have a long tradition of monarchy (which is certainly not a prerequisite for a healthy democracy, but just one of several potential influences), but your inclusion of Germany and the USA as former monarchies in the same post (implying that their former monarchies had much if anything to with their transition to democracy) is strange, in that republics that are democracies tend to be so not because of their monarchies, but out of opposition to them.

[Salandriagado]

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).

Nope. Regardless of how you group them, every group of monarchies is more democratic than the equivalent group of republics - Western monarchies are more democratic than Western republics, African monarchies are more democratic than African republics, and so on.

[Leepaidamba]

(Image)

Looks eerily similar to this:

Just sayin'.

[Forsher]

(Image)

Looks eerily similar to this:

Just sayin'.

Only that most of the dark blue countries are monarchies. Everywhere else is radically different.

[Leepaidamba]

Looks eerily similar to this:

Just sayin'.

Only that most of the dark blue countries are monarchies. Everywhere else is radically different.

Do you know what distinguishes the dark blue countries from the others?

[Seleucas]

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.

I have, actually, multiple times; check out the monetary base, the labor participation rate (NOT the unemployment rate, that does not count people who have given up trying to find work), the awful state of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, how derivatives have swollen back in size, on the economic side, and on the geopolitical side we can see that the US has been impotent in getting rid of Iran, Iraq has turned back to China over us, and we've only been able to establish a city-state of Kabul in Afghanistan while the Taliban has been able to resurge. The US really has nothing to go for it, any more.

[Tlaceceyaya]

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

I have, actually, multiple times; check out the monetary base, the labor participation rate (NOT the unemployment rate, that does not count people who have given up trying to find work), the awful state of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, how derivatives have swollen back in size, on the economic side, and on the geopolitical side we can see that the US has been impotent in getting rid of Iran, Iraq has turned back to China over us, and we've only been able to establish a city-state of Kabul in Afghanistan while the Taliban has been able to resurge. The US really has nothing to go for it, any more.

When someone says they want evidence, they don't want you to assure them that it's there. They want you to include it in your post, either as a link or a quote and a link.

[The UK in Exile]

Only that most of the dark blue countries are monarchies. Everywhere else is radically different.

Do you know what distinguishes the dark blue countries from the others?

the iron curtain?

[Nadkor]

(Image)

Looks eerily similar to this:

Just sayin'.

Irrelevant map is irrelevant.

[Caninope]

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).

Nope. Regardless of how you group them, every group of monarchies is more democratic than the equivalent group of republics - Western monarchies are more democratic than Western republics, African monarchies are more democratic than African republics, and so on.

Please source this. I'd like to see this sourced.

[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.

Wrong.

Obviously, you're not familiar with how fast autocrats and despots (who aren't always monarchs) can bring down an entire country.

"A bad monarch could destroy everything faster than any President could."

[Nadkor]

Wrong.

Obviously, you're not familiar with how fast autocrats and despots (who aren't always monarchs) can bring down an entire country.

"A bad monarch could destroy everything faster than any President could."

Again, the system itself matters more than whether the top can be defined as a monarchy or a republic.

[Ulvena]

"A bad monarch could destroy everything faster than any President could."

Again, the system itself matters more than whether the top can be defined as a monarchy or a republic.

Of course. That's why I said a republic is better than a monarchy. Or a Head of State that's a monarch but a head of government that's a Prime minister like in England or Japan.

[Caninope]

Wrong.

Obviously, you're not familiar with how fast autocrats and despots (who aren't always monarchs) can bring down an entire country.

"A bad monarch could destroy everything faster than any President could."

Except that there's nothing preventing a monarch from destroying everything faster than an autocrat.

[Nadkor]

Again, the system itself matters more than whether the top can be defined as a monarchy or a republic.

Of course. That's why I said a republic is better than a monarchy. Or a Head of State that's a monarch but a head of government that's a Prime minister like in England or Japan.

Neither is intrinsically "better". Which is actually my point, rendering your "of course" somewhat confusing.

"It doesn't matter if it's a monarchy or a republic, it depends on the actual system"
"Of course, that's why I said a republic is better"

Erm.

[Ulvena]

"A bad monarch could destroy everything faster than any President could."

Except that there's nothing preventing a monarch from destroying everything faster than an autocrat.

Absolute monarchy is a form of autocracy. So I assumed when I said monarch, I included autocrats in there as well.

[Seleucas]

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.

Again with this 'sympathetic' leader, is it a populace that has sympathy for their leader or a leader that is sympathetic to his populace, who feels sorry for his populace? And you don't want that so does that mean you don't want charity or pity from your peers?

Are you even capitalist? And that's not even working to make you're money that's scamming and stealing. So fail.

Populace that is sympathetic to their leader, i.e. identifies with him and thus will give him what he wants with less resistance. Frankly, I really don't care if the leader feels sympathy for me or not.

I don't refer to myself as capitalist, because there are plenty of capitalists (i.e. those who own capital) who are scumbags and make money from the state; I am in favor of free markets. Obviously, I don't believe that ALL capitalists are bad, but I do not identify with them as a general group.

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.

Nope, North Korea is neither De Jure or De Facto. It is definitely not Marxist at all, no state can be. Socialist? North Korea claims universal healthcare, but I really doubt it does. And North Korean hospitals mainly lack electricity and sometimes even anaesthesia. And it's population is starving, malnourished and dying. Private Property is not a requirement for a monarchy. For the monarch? Perhaps but for the average citizen? The Kim Dynasty pretty much claims North Korea as it's private property so that's one fail, for the average North Korean though? They probably pay for healthcare as I've said and their shelter and food, if they had those things then why is North Korea considered so bad? Because there is no free shelter and food. You'd have to pay for it. Another fail. Classless? The ruling class is distinct from the rest of the population, when has the average North Korean ever got educated in Switzerland? Live in palace with luxury, none of them have experienced that, only the Kim Dynasty have. The ruling class is divided And you fail to challenge the fact that North Korea has divine right and imperial cults just like China, Japan and Egypt once had.
I never said it always played a part in all dictatorships. A king is raised to be a king right? Same thing in North Korea.

Where was the black president 100 years ago? When were black people even allowed to vote? Becoming more restrictive my ass.[/quote]

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx believed in a dictatorship of the proletariat before achieving a classless world, so actually a state can be Marxist. And by socialism I do not mean universal healthcare, because universal healthcare can have wide variety of state and private ownership (the US system of universal healthcare, i.e. everyone gets insured, still depends on private healthcare and insurance, for instance, and thus wouldn't really be socialist); I mean ownership of the means of production by the public or state rather than private ownership. North Korea is a centrally-planned state economy; that is proven. North Koreans might need to bribe healthcare workers with booze to get treatment, but that doesn't indicate that they have a free market healthcare system but rather that a black market exists to fill in for the shortages and rationing of the state-run socialist healthcare system.

Of course, since the North Korean government doesn't fund its healthcare system very well (another indication of state-ownership, that the healthcare system is more-or-less completely dependent on state funding rather than market transactions), that is not going to be the main method by which they mollify their population. What would allow them to maintain control over their population is the fact that the North Korean government has control over jobs and food (since it is a planned economy) as well as education (which is both a benefit to the population as well as a means of control.) This of course means that a North Korean's livelihood is fully dependent on the state, and along with the possibility for advancement through political ranks (such as through the North Korean military), this ensures their loyalty even in trying times. Such a system would only continue to work so long as the state can keep the goods flowing (dictatorships are almost always overthrown not because of a desire for 'liberty,' but because of food becoming too scarce.) However, while a monarchy can be overthrown even when conditions aren't so terrible, a dictatorship like those of North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc. can have its population endure decades of deprivation through the methods of dependency and entry into power that I mentioned previously.

As far as private property and monarchy go, monarchy is wholly dependent on the notion of private property; broadly speaking, monarchy works on the basis of having defined reciprocal roles and rights between distinct classes of people (in essence, property rights), while dictatorship tends towards notions of popular sovereignty (though it may not necessarily be against private property.) And, again, North Korea is a planned, state-owned country, which means that the Kims have to share in their power with the rest of their political allies. The masses might be able to turn to the black market for extra goods and services, but that is outside of the scope of governmental policy which does not tolerate the existence of private property. And I never said that there was no distinction between those in power and those outside of it in North Korea (obviously, there would be no incentive to pursue political power in North Korea if there was no benefit in doing so), but rather that political power is of a different sort than in a monarchy since dictatorship depends on mobilizing the masses to actively cooperate with the state rather than simply being subject.

Finally, as I mentioned before, heredity is indeed an important part of monarchy, and in more nepotistic dictatorships a successor may be the previous leader's offspring, but that doesn't mean that monarchies and dictatorships anymore than an animal having only two legs means it is a human; there are still a variety of differences between the two systems on the basis of exclusivity of power. Besides, even when the successor is the offspring of their predecessor, a dictatorship will still shape their personality in a different way than a monarchy would (quite a few European kings, for instance, have proven themselves less confident or more benign than their fathers, while the sons of dictators having been raised in a different environment tend to be just as vicious as their fathers; see Kim Jon-Il and Saddam's sons.) And I didn't touch on deification because I really don't think it's that important; what IS important is why it is that an Emperor of China or King of Korea, for instance, might deify himself and yet find himself unable to eliminate opposition to his rule (for instance, through the promulgation of Confucian ideals or the idea of a Mandate of Heaven) but the ruling party of Korea has been able to more or less eliminate any ideological resistance within North Korea.

And I am not referring to now vs 100 years ago; I am referring to now versus the last decade or so, in which the US has been progressively weakening civil liberties in the name of 'defending' the US from terrorism, and within the last year habeas corpus having been gutted. The security and privacy of my person matters far more than what shade the President might be.

[Nadkor]

Except that there's nothing preventing a monarch from destroying everything faster than an autocrat.

Absolute monarchy is a form of autocracy. So I assumed when I said monarch, I included autocrats in there as well.

One of these sentences makes sense:

Paracetamol is a form of drug. So I assumed when I said paracetamol, I included drugs in there as well.

Paracetamol is a form of drug. So I assumed when I said drugs, I included paracetamol in there as well.

The one that doesn't make sense is the one you wrote.

[Ulvena]

Absolute monarchy is a form of autocracy. So I assumed when I said monarch, I included autocrats in there as well.

One of these sentences makes sense:

Paracetamol is a form of drug. So I assumed when I said paracetamol, I included drugs in there as well.

Paracetamol is a form of drug. So I assumed when I said drugs, I included paracetamol in there as well.

The one that doesn't make sense is the one you wrote.

It may not make sense with logic but in terms of communication, you understand what I meant.

[Caninope]

Except that there's nothing preventing a monarch from destroying everything faster than an autocrat.

Absolute monarchy is a form of autocracy. So I assumed when I said monarch, I included autocrats in there as well.

But autocracy isn't always a monarchy.

[Ulvena]

Absolute monarchy is a form of autocracy. So I assumed when I said monarch, I included autocrats in there as well.

But autocracy isn't always a monarchy.

True. Yeah, bad autocrats can destroy a nation worse than any bad President.