Dictatorship vs. Monarchy?

[Palmia]

You were implying that a monarchy and a democracy were incompatible.

Or maybe I read it wrong.

I was saying the monarchies you describe were constitutional monarchies, which are basically democracies.

In no way does the phrase constitutional monarchy imply democracy. A constitutional monarchy is a state were the monarch's power is limited by constitutional law. The United Kingdom, for example, is not a constitutional monarchy because they lack a central documented constitution, and they are not ruled by a monarch. The are a nominally monarchial parliamentary democracy.

[Chinese Regions]

I was saying the monarchies you describe were constitutional monarchies, which are basically democracies.

In no way does the phrase constitutional monarchy imply democracy. A constitutional monarchy is a state were the monarch's power is limited by constitutional law. The United Kingdom, for example, is not a constitutional monarchy because they lack a central documented constitution, and they are not ruled by a monarch. The are a nominally monarchial parliamentary democracy.

Magna Carta, Reform Act 1832.

[Galla-]

You were implying that a monarchy and a democracy were incompatible.

Or maybe I read it wrong.

I was saying the monarchies you describe were constitutional monarchies, which are basically democracies.

They are not.

Constitutional monarchy can be a lot of things, a democracy being one. One would be hard pressed to describe Morocco as anything more than a democracy in name only given the rather tremendous powers the monarchy holds according to their constitution.

[Estrimbaal]

In no way does the phrase constitutional monarchy imply democracy. A constitutional monarchy is a state were the monarch's power is limited by constitutional law. The United Kingdom, for example, is not a constitutional monarchy because they lack a central documented constitution, and they are not ruled by a monarch. The are a nominally monarchial parliamentary democracy.

Magna Carta, Reform Act 1832.

Those don't technically count as a constitution as neither are supreme laws of the land and each may be repealed by parliament at anytime. They are constitutional documents as they deal with the functioning of government, but not a true blue constitution as understood elsewhere. Also in reality the Magna Carta was not the great limiter of royal authority everyone thinks it is, It only applied to peers, churchmen and nobles. The Reform Act 1832 was more concerned with how Parliament was structure and elected than any sort of limit on the Crown.

That said, the UK does count as a Constitutional Monarchy, as that is a state that limits the power of its monarch in ANY way. In the UK this is the conventions that the Crown delegate to Parliament the governance of the realm and that the Crown will only act to ensure Parliament continue to function.

[Genivaria]

In a dictatorship I imagine that you still have to somehow 'earn' your way to the top. So...I would favor Dictatorship.

[Zuoki]

Monarchy

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Let us assume, for the purposes of this hypothetical, that a hybrid example (Such as Mussolini's rule under King Victor Emmanuel III) is not an option. In the event that a man takes power over a country, would you prefer him to style himself as a monarch and rule as such, or to take more standard dictatorial trappings, whether through a thin veneer of constitutionality (A la 'President' so and so) or through a position of military power? The man who takes power is the same either way. Hell, let's even say that his policies are the same either way. Whether or not you support him, which path would you prefer he takes?

In my studies of history it seems that the common people would hold more loyalty to a monarch. Dictators, Oliver Cromwell for example, haven't lasted that long historically since they have no real base of power to draw from once the dictator dies.

Monarchs, on the other hand, have sons, daughters, brothers, etc, that the common people can draw confidence from.


North Korea is one of very few examples where a dictatorship has lived pass the death of the original dictator.

That is an incredibly nuanced study of history you have there.
However, you kind of forgot that we need to factor in what time period.
For those Dark Ages sheeple, monarchy was effective. But in Renaissance Florence, or modern day, a dictatorship would probably have more stability.

[Threlizdun]

In a dictatorship I imagine that you still have to somehow 'earn' your way to the top. So...I would favor Dictatorship.

This

[SD_Film Artists]

I was saying the monarchies you describe were constitutional monarchies, which are basically democracies.

They are not.

Constitutional monarchy can be a lot of things, a democracy being one. One would be hard pressed to describe Morocco as anything more than a democracy in name only given the rather tremendous powers the monarchy holds according to their constitution.

I guess it's a literal meaning vs the implied and excepted meaning. Colonialism for example is simply building a colony in another land, but to many people it implies violent invasion and oppression even though that's not always the case.

Britain doesn't have a Constitution, but we are very much a constitutional monarchy; as it basically means "we're not one of those medieval monarchies".

[The UK in Exile]

heriditary monarchy? or appointed monarch?

assuming its an appointed dictator and appointed monarch, no difference.

assuming an appointed dictator and a hereditary monarch, big difference. dictator all the way.

[Tovaslavia]

In my mind, monarchs are dictators but with luxurious outfits and hereditary rule.

[Seleucas]

Monarchy, because at least he would visibly set himself apart from the people and thus cannot rely on the use of mass politics to advance his agenda, and because it would eliminate the pernicious effects of having a political party so that said ruler could act in his own self-interest. (His biological successor may be a nicer person than he; his successor as a dictator would be another scoundrel who clawed his way up the party ranks.) Furthermore, while anything goes in dictatorship, in monarchy there are at least some implications of the legitimacy of private property (the kingdom being the king's property.)

[Greater Tezdrian]

Monarchy, obviously.

[Auzkhia]

i like monarchies because they are cooler than republics and most monarchies have a high living standard
i'd rather live under a king/queen or emperor than a president
besides a King isn't puppet control by some stupid political party

[Seleucas]

Monarchy, obviously.

I still don't see why the generic dictator is more appealing than the generic monarch, maybe aside from an appeal to an ineffable equality that supposedly exists. (And which hardly seems to be expressed in dictatorship, anyway.)

[Forsher]

Let us assume, for the purposes of this hypothetical, that a hybrid example (Such as Mussolini's rule under King Victor Emmanuel III) is not an option. In the event that a man takes power over a country, would you prefer him to style himself as a monarch and rule as such, or to take more standard dictatorial trappings, whether through a thin veneer of constitutionality (A la 'President' so and so) or through a position of military power? The man who takes power is the same either way. Hell, let's even say that his policies are the same either way. Whether or not you support him, which path would you prefer he takes?

EDIT: In both he rules as an absolute autocrat.

I see no-difference. Idi Amin was after all the King of Scotland, I'd have to know more about what happens afterwards.

[DaWoad]

dictator, one way or another his reign will likely end quicker

[Tergnitz]

A Monarchy is generally more stable than a Dictatorship; given its focus on institutional rather than personality strength. Thus, said state is more likely to change slowly over time due to public pressure and awareness; rather than a violent civil war that takes place in the power vacuum after the Dictator's death.

[Sidhae]

Monarchy is clearly superior to dictatorship in that hereditary rule ensures stability. A dictator is one risen from the masses with his personal charisma, and if his successor lacks in it (which is most usually the case), the regime becomes unstable and prone to collapse. In addition, while a dictator may be charismatic (or at least appealing to a particular circle of society), he might not necessarily possess the necessary skills of statecraft for successful reign. A king in turn is usually educated in the arts of statecraft, i.e., taught to be a king from childhood, hence the greater likelihood that a king's rule will be competent.

Of course, there's always the problem that normally only one child, the most likely successor, is educated in this manner. Should the normal succession line be disrupted, there's a possibility that a less-competent relative will become king by chance.

[Darqastan]

Honestly, it all depends on how the leader runs the country. If the Dictator is a man/woman of the people that actually does things in the best interests of his people and knows what he/she is doing, then full speed ahead. Likewise, if it is a Monarch in the same situation, then that is good as well. However, I prefer Dictators.

[Collingwood1]

under a dictator you got almost no hope of expressing his or hers ideas. under a moncary you got a chanch for change. plues monachs are sysboles of thire nation which lasts for a long time

[Romania Mare1]

monarchies tend to be more inneficient at supressing human rights since they just care about their ass. I'd prefer it to a psychotic dictator who wants to control everything

[Distruzio]

Monarchy, obviously.

I still don't see why the generic dictator is more appealing than the generic monarch, maybe aside from an appeal to an ineffable equality that supposedly exists. (And which hardly seems to be expressed in dictatorship, anyway.)

Don't you see, Sel? A Dictatorship is more in line with egalitarian ideals since they really don't believe that all men are created equal but that those who are born into authority should have their authority abolished in favor of those who deserve it - the dictators. Whether those dictators be numerous or singular fails to matter at all so long as the inherited wealth and authority is broken. Its vanity and envy all wrapped into one.

[Darqastan]

under a dictator you got almost no hope of expressing his or hers ideas. under a moncary you got a chanch for change. plues monachs are sysboles of thire nation which lasts for a long time

But, if we had a capable and competent dictator that simply wanted the best for us, it would be much better. I'd draw the analogy of a parent not letting their kids eat sweets before dinner, for example. Monarchs are simply rich people who have been thrusted a very important duty simply because he's someone's child. And you do realize that dictators can be symbols of their nations as well?

[The Almighty Caesar]

Dictator no reason why.